Why Can't We Fix It Ourselves?

[Gimmesometruth]

So you both wish to post without saying anything. Amazing.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge..nay...recognize the counterargument, is only exceeded by the hypocrisy of not creating a response.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

So, your right to your amount of "alleged" free speech is solely dependent on your economic condition and to hell with "equal protection" of the law for every citizen, correct? Is that your idea of good government and equal amounts of freedom?

Wait...you think I advocate for the ideas of corporate personhood or that money is speech?

How in the hell did you come to that conclusions?

 

[jimbo]

If money is political free speech, then your amount of political free speech depends on how rich you are and what you’re willing to pay to exhibit your alleged “free” speech. Poor people have little to no “free” speech, i.e. Individual voice, because apparently political speech isn’t “free.”


If political speech has value, and an America principle is “equal protection” of the laws for everybody, then it goes without saying that at least as so far as “political” speech goes, the law of the land should reflect a mandate that political speech be made “equal” for every citizen.


Why can’t/shouldn’t concerned citizens who acknowledge that American politics is corrupted by money and bribery and especially so by collective special interest and the BIG money Two Party System, Why don’t we gather together and debate and solve that situation while still respecting the Constitution and it’s Bill Of Rights and petition the government to reform the system?


Opinions and arguments, please! Let’s go for it.

You are confusing free speech, which we have, with equal speech, which we have never had. You certainly have the right to spend your own money and run whatever ads you or a group of you's want to run. You can even do it on the various media outlets, Facebook. Twitter, or even this Forum. I've been to enough local Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings to know that they last till everybody gets heard. You can even yell loudly from the street corner if you desire. You can petition the government to reform the system.

What I get from your post is that your issue is money in politics, which is a different issue.

 

[Crovax]

How about you? Do you have a grasp of what the problems are? Do you have any ideas that would solve the situation? Are you willing to articulate and debate them? How hard is it to simply throw your hands up in defeat and leave it to somebody, (maybe nobody), else? Can't anybody just do that?

Well there are two separate problems not unrelated. First two party system is a symptom, not a cause, of our FPTP voting system expressed by Duverger's law and the second being the departure from a representative democracy.

The FPTP system will always end up with two parties which will always seek to exclude minority positions and consolidate power. So whats the fix? most would say a parliamentary voting system where parties get representatives relative to their support. A truer form of democracy. Notice how to people who are the most mad at the system are supporting either Trump or Sanders. Both Trump and Sanders rail against the "rigged" primary system and rally their supporters to this cause. Which brings us to the second problem, the shift away from a representative form of government has made our politicians less accountable since they are voted based on their ideas and not their character. People will elect a scum bag as long as he hold the right positions because they have just become empty vessels for the "will of the people". Should we really be surprised that when we elect an empty suit for our own purposes that they, in turn, wont do whatever they can for their own purposes?

Those rallying for change are helping create the means of their own destruction, there is no way to fix that.

 

[Paleocon]

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge..nay...recognize the counterargument, is only exceeded by the hypocrisy of not creating a response.

No one in this thread has made a counterargument.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Abolish democracy. As long as rulers are chosen through mass elections, the problems you present can never be fixed.

LOL....dynastic....or tyrannical succession....is the cure.....to get money out of politics!


BRILLIANT!

So you both wish to post without saying anything. Amazing.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge..nay...recognize the counterargument, is only exceeded by the hypocrisy of not creating a response.

No one in this thread has made a counterargument.

Of course I did, I said from the beginning the arguing that tyranny or dynastic rule (anti-democracy) is a path to eliminating money (power) from politics....is an incredibly stupid argument. Tyranny or dynastic rule is all about money/power, might makes right. Further, it is tautology to say the way to get rid of money/power influence in a democracy.....is to eliminate democracy....frigging duh. This completely sidesteps the fact that rule through power is the objection being made.

But then here I was expecting logic to be recognized b you.

 

[Paleocon]

Of course I did, I said from the beginning the arguing that tyranny or dynastic rule (anti-democracy) is a path to eliminating money (power) from politics....is an incredibly stupid argument. Tyranny or dynastic rule is all about money/power, might makes right. Further, it is tautology to say the way to get rid of money/power influence in a democracy.....is to eliminate democracy....frigging duh. This completely sidesteps the fact that rule through power is the objection being made.

But then here I was expecting logic to be recognized b you.

Just asserting that something is dumb isn't an argument. While you apparently had an argument, you didn't present it until now.

I've never said power needs to be kept from government, that but of incoherence seems to be your own. The benefit of monarchy is that it makes so that it is not necessary for the ruler to have vaingloriously sought power, rather he receives it completely nonmeritoriously. And I didn't mean it'd keep money out of politics, I meant it would prevent private individuals with accumulated wealth from unduly influencing the government.

 

[TheHammer]

What rights we do have are unlimited and cannot be infringed on in any way? :shock:

How about "equal protection of the law?" Will you accept that or even demand it?

 

[TheHammer]

You seem like you want to ignore the government, you're saying that we don't need the government.

On the contrary. I’m saying government isn’t interested in creating a fair, honest system of government and providing equal protection of the law to every citizen. You’ve submitted as much yourself.

Article 5 of our Constitution gives the States as well as Congress the authority and power to call for and amend the Constitution with a constitutional convention. I submit that “we the people” can and should debate, discuss and contribute a constitutional amendment for such state consideration and thereby promote a constitutional convention to severely limit the money and bribery out of the system.

But then you say we may need to 'constitutionally get rid of the lobbyist'. How do we do change the Constitution without the government?

Write the amendment. Promote the constitutional convention. Solicit and petition our state representatives.

What you are saying all goes back to my 1st point. The Foxes are guarding the hen house. Until that changes(and without burning down the whole house it won't change) the lobbyists, the big money, the corruption will not go away.

Then I’ll put you down as a fatalist disinterested in the conversation, the debate or any chance for a solution.

How easy is it to give it up without even a grunt of effort?

 

[TheHammer]

The American people will only be the guards of the hen house when American citizens collectively are educated, informed and interested in the political process. Unfortunately, you've got the educational system which trains them to be self-centered and complacent, you've got the political parties that tell them to shut up and sit down and you've got so many other things in life that get in the way of being actually interested in the way the government, that you will probably never see this and the government, which is inherently corrupt and corrupting, has zero interest in ever changing anything without a revolution, which is what it would take and which will never, ever happen.

Then you're irrelevant to the conversation. Disinterested, apathetic and fatalist. reply again when you're of a mind to contribute.

It isn't the politicians that are the problem, we can elect all the new politicians we want, the system corrupts each and every one of them. If they want to get anything done in Washington, they have to become corrupted. If they don't become corrupted, they accomplish nothing and get booted out as ineffective in the next election. And nothing will ever be done Constitutionally because the American people are so ideologically deadlocked that they will never come together again to vote for an amendment.

We're screwed.

You should have saved you keyboard and simply contributed your last two words here. they're the only honest thought you have.

 

[TheHammer]

Mass democracy means rule by the controllers of public opinion. I suppose you can try to change exactly who that is, but you can't fix the real problem.

You also are irrelevant to any rational conversation. Amazing how many gutless defeatist live in this land. We can't win. So we will ignore the problem and just let the country go to hell. How courageous!

 

[TheHammer]

Money is not speech. It is volume. It allows you to turn your speech up louder than everyone else and drown them out. Laws against how loud you can be in public have existed forever and should applicable here as well.

Money is speech when it's buying political speech. The problem is it isn't FREE speech. It's expensive speech reserved for special interest and millionaires. There is NO equal protection of the speech laws for every citizen. In my opinion that's a solvable situation if a courageous citizenry has the gonads to demand better government, prohibitions on government bribery and corruption.

 

[TheHammer]

You are confusing free speech, which we have, with equal speech, which we have never had. You certainly have the right to spend your own money and run whatever ads you or a group of you's want to run. You can even do it on the various media outlets, Facebook. Twitter, or even this Forum. I've been to enough local Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission meetings to know that they last till everybody gets heard. You can even yell loudly from the street corner if you desire. You can petition the government to reform the system.

What I get from your post is that your issue is money in politics, which is a different issue.

Money in politics isn't speech? Why can't "political speech" be constitutionally regulated? Why shouldn't it be regulated since it's a major driver of government corruption?

 

[Paleocon]

You also are irrelevant to any rational conversation. Amazing how many gutless defeatist live in this land. We can't win. So we will ignore the problem and just let the country go to hell. How courageous!

I'm not a defeatist. You lie and call me one because my solution is beyond your ability to listen to.

 

[Cephus]

Then you're irrelevant to the conversation. Disinterested, apathetic and fatalist. reply again when you're of a mind to contribute.

No matter how much you wish reality was different, it isn't. You can't wave your magic wand and wish it all away. This culture of ignorance and disinterest has been created over generations, by both sides of the political spectrum, for the same reason, they don't want anyone paying any attention to what they're doing in Washington, they want everyone to be ignorant and malleable and stupid and it worked. It is going to take generations to change it back to something worthwhile. There is no simple solution and pretending otherwise is foolish.

You should have saved you keyboard and simply contributed your last two words here. they're the only honest thought you have.

If you don't understand why things happen the way they do, you can't hope to fix them. There is no magic pill for this. We earned it ourselves. We're going to have to get out of it ourselves too, but because nobody has any interest in doing so, it's not going to happen until there is a fundamental change across all parties and all peoples to make that change.

I don't see that happening, maybe ever. That's why society is in a nosedive. That's reality.

 

[Socrates1]

No rational ideas, comments or serious thoughts, huh? Have fun!

None that make sense to you . :roll:

 

[Hawkeye10]

If money is political free speech, then your amount of political free speech depends on how rich you are and what you’re willing to pay to exhibit your alleged “free” speech. Poor people have little to no “free” speech, i.e. Individual voice, because apparently political speech isn’t “free.”


If political speech has value, and an America principle is “equal protection” of the laws for everybody, then it goes without saying that at least as so far as “political” speech goes, the law of the land should reflect a mandate that political speech be made “equal” for every citizen.


Why can’t/shouldn’t concerned citizens who acknowledge that American politics is corrupted by money and bribery and especially so by collective special interest and the BIG money Two Party System, Why don’t we gather together and debate and solve that situation while still respecting the Constitution and it’s Bill Of Rights and petition the government to reform the system?


Opinions and arguments, please! Let’s go for it.

We could, but acting responsibly would not stop there, we would for instance have to stop using the kids credit card, we would need to make choices on what we are willing to pay for, and we would have to make do with less. And seriously at this point the broken economy and broken balance sheet are so far gone that it is questionable if they can be fixed. We dont seem to have the experts qualified to get the job done. We dont seem to have citizens who are willing to sacrifice or delay gratification. It is highly debatable as to whether given how broken the education system is whether the citizens have the intellectual capacity to be responsible citizens.

I think we need to keep trying for reform, but that in all likelihood the best we can do is prepare for the great crash. And prepare to rebuild something sustainable.

 

[cpwill]

What rights we do have are unlimited and cannot be infringed on in any way? :shock:

Your rights are limited by the rights of others, not by their unwillingness or inability to match your exercise of them. People having the rights to speech is not a problem to fix, it's a freedom to celebrate.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[Mr Person]

If money is political free speech

The fundamental problem with Citizens United is that comparison right there. They simply got it wrong.

An analogy....

I can stand on a soapbox and give a speech. Someone can likely do the same thing. Our speech competes. But, due to various sound ordinances/etc, a rich person cannot blast their speech over a soundsystem that projects to an entire city, thereby drowning out everyone else who is trying to give speeches from individual soap boxes.

Unlimited money in politics up-ends that. A $10,000,000 donation renders an individual's $100 donation irrelevant.

 

[JasperL]

Your rights are limited by the rights of others, not by their unwillingness or inability to match your exercise of them. People having the rights to speech is not a problem to fix, it's a freedom to celebrate.

I don't equate spending money to influence politics with protected speech, sorry. I'm aware of no right to spend unlimited sums to buy ads etc., just the right to speak one's mind.

 

[jimbo]

Money in politics isn't speech? Why can't "political speech" be constitutionally regulated? Why shouldn't it be regulated since it's a major driver of government corruption?

The Constitution does not prohibit any but a very few types of speech. Political and religious in particular are. Constitutional. If you want to change that, an amendment would be needed.

 

[Thrilla]

How about "equal protection of the law?" Will you accept that or even demand it?

so what do we do about mute people?.. .forbid anyone from speaking so they are "equal" to those whom can speak?.. of course not, but that's exactly what you are arguing here.

equal protection under the law does not mean anything close to "mandating equality"...that's incredibly absurd... it simply means that he law s applied equally to all those under it's jurisdiction.


if you want to fix money in politics, stop thinking inside the little box that dictates you violate the people's rights...... regulate the government itself.... the government has no rights to violate ( it only has powers)
for example, it violates no rights to set expenditure limits on candidates or elected officials...it violates no right to set excess ( beyond the set limit) politcal donations in the general fund.

once you start seeking to violate the rights of "we the people", you've set out on a bad path and should reevaluate.... and yes, "we the people" includes corporations, associations, unions, clubs, human beings, and any other legal person.

folks just need ot suck it up and stop denying reality, money can be used as speech and corporations are legal persons... and water is wet, and the sky is blue on a sunny day.

 

[Thrilla]

The fundamental problem with Citizens United is that comparison right there. They simply got it wrong.

An analogy....

I can stand on a soapbox and give a speech. Someone can likely do the same thing. Our speech competes. But, due to various sound ordinances/etc, a rich person cannot blast their speech over a soundsystem that projects to an entire city, thereby drowning out everyone else who is trying to give speeches from individual soap boxes.

Unlimited money in politics up-ends that. A $10,000,000 donation renders an individual's $100 donation irrelevant.

that the "dangers" of having rights.... some people will exercise them better, or more, than others.... and some people won't exercise them at all.
and there's virtually nothing you can do about it and still be considered to be protecting those rights.

if your answer is to mandate equal amounts of rights , you're barking up a very wrong tree.... the government cannot set limits on protected speech,and it's in our best interests to keep it that way.

 

[Thrilla]

I don't equate spending money to influence politics with protected speech, sorry. I'm aware of no right to spend unlimited sums to buy ads etc., just the right to speak one's mind.

SCOTUS and the Constitution disagrees with you.

it's a very easy 2 step process to settle things like ya'll want.

1st, invalidate the 1st amendment.
2nd, give the government the express power to regulate any and all forms of speech and expression at their discretion.

the right to buy unlimited ads ( there's no such thing , btw.. airtime is very limited) is covered by the 1st amendment.
the government can't do **** about it.

 

[cpwill]

I don't equate spending money to influence politics with protected speech, sorry. I'm aware of no right to spend unlimited sums to buy ads etc., just the right to speak one's mind.

Cool. Try to publish a book without spending money. Let us know how it goes.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk