By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Im really getting sick of the half-ars politics in the USA

Mr Khan on 23 December 2010
HappySqurriel said:
Mitsurugi said:

Simple solutions:

Everything politicians say to the public is recorded, their held accountable for any claim or promise they make to the people. Penalties include being fired (or impeeched), foreiting assets, steep fines and jailtime.

Major decisions and pieces of legislation can be vetoed/overturned by the people and must meet their approval in order to be passed. People have to wait 6-12months to for a repeal to a passed Bill/act ( in case they change their minds before the bill/decision has taken affect). They can ammend or modify bills/acts at any time.

too bad these will never come to fruition in America (looks at Europe)

I think it is much simpler than that ...

Simply make all communications between elected officials and their staff part of the public record after 6 weeks, with the only exceptions being when the communications are about private information about an individual or if it would violate national security; and in both cases these communications would have to be reviewed by a non-partisan committee and a non-partisan auditor. I could be wrong but I suspect that when all the wheeling and dealing was made public the ability for elected officials to work against the best interests of the public to benefit special interest groups would be eliminated.

The simpler route there would be to socialize Federal elections: the government guarantees you a certain amount of ad space in various venues that you may use as you see fit, but it's funded strictly by the government and will give equal voice to both candidates, and thus makes sure that politicians don't have to go grubbing to various large lobbies so that they can acquire the money necessary to remain competitive.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
non-gravity on 23 December 2010
Mr Khan said:

The simpler route there would be to socialize Federal elections: the government guarantees you a certain amount of ad space in various venues that you may use as you see fit, but it's funded strictly by the government and will give equal voice to both candidates, and thus makes sure that politicians don't have to go grubbing to various large lobbies so that they can acquire the money necessary to remain competitive.

America always only has 2 candidates?



Mr Khan on 23 December 2010
non-gravity said:
Mr Khan said:

The simpler route there would be to socialize Federal elections: the government guarantees you a certain amount of ad space in various venues that you may use as you see fit, but it's funded strictly by the government and will give equal voice to both candidates, and thus makes sure that politicians don't have to go grubbing to various large lobbies so that they can acquire the money necessary to remain competitive.

America always only has 2 candidates?

That would be the only realistic thing you could get people to agree to. But the way our elections work mean that third parties by their nature cannot exist for long, because its in the interest of one party or the other (or sometimes both) to stamp the third party out of existence, because generally a third party will only sap the base of one of the two, leaving the other more powerful than ever

Ours is a winner-take-all system. If an election went 35%-34%-33%, 35 gets everything while 34 and 33 get squat, so a two-party setup is only natural



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Viper1 on 23 December 2010
johnsobas said:

 there is no politician that isn't insanely pro israel in the US, it isn't possible to be tough on israel and get elected.


Go look up Ron Paul. 


I too am against most government intervention but favor most of the Net Neutrality Act.  BUT, there is a small side of me that actually wants the government to contiue to screw up because it brings us one step closer to a revolution.  America will never change or go back to its founding principles without a heavy handed push by the American people.



The rEVOLution is not being televised

stopstopp on 23 December 2010

Unfortunately for us, nothing will change. Congress, it's the opposite of progress.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 23 December 2010

Wait?  The Democrats are up in arms about cutting support to Israel....

I thought they were the ones who wanted to get rid of support to Israel in the first place.

Did the Republicans finally wise up and realize that culturally Jewish US voters are way more liberal then jewish voters in the rest of the world?



Mr Khan on 23 December 2010
Kasz216 said:

Wait?  The Democrats are up in arms about cutting support to Israel....

I thought they were the ones who wanted to get rid of support to Israel in the first place.

Did the Republicans finally wise up and realize that culturally Jewish US voters are way more liberal then jewish voters in the rest of the world?

It really seems to be the Christian right that's fiercely pro-Israel than your average American Jew, or at least that was my impression.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Kasz216 on 23 December 2010
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:

Wait?  The Democrats are up in arms about cutting support to Israel....

I thought they were the ones who wanted to get rid of support to Israel in the first place.

Did the Republicans finally wise up and realize that culturally Jewish US voters are way more liberal then jewish voters in the rest of the world?

It really seems to be the Christian right that's fiercely pro-Israel than your average American Jew, or at least that was my impression.

Yes and No, while still very liberal, protection of Israel while slipping a bit is still a top priority.  Afterall when people complain about the top Israel lobbying group it isn't a Christian one, it's... that one who's name i forget because i haven't listend to the radio in aw hile.

Some Jewish fund.

Besides?  What is the Christian Right going to do?  Vote Democrat?

At worst they consider running a third party candidate which is very unlikely when you can just emotionally sway them with issues like abortion and gay marriage.



Kasz216 on 23 December 2010
Mr Khan said:
non-gravity said:
Mr Khan said:

The simpler route there would be to socialize Federal elections: the government guarantees you a certain amount of ad space in various venues that you may use as you see fit, but it's funded strictly by the government and will give equal voice to both candidates, and thus makes sure that politicians don't have to go grubbing to various large lobbies so that they can acquire the money necessary to remain competitive.

America always only has 2 candidates?

That would be the only realistic thing you could get people to agree to. But the way our elections work mean that third parties by their nature cannot exist for long, because its in the interest of one party or the other (or sometimes both) to stamp the third party out of existence, because generally a third party will only sap the base of one of the two, leaving the other more powerful than ever

Ours is a winner-take-all system. If an election went 35%-34%-33%, 35 gets everything while 34 and 33 get squat, so a two-party setup is only natural

Heck, look at how both Repubclians and Dems are looking to get rid of the Tea Party.

Any third party that begins to get popular ends up dieing of collusion.



optoma1990 on 23 December 2010

My biggest moan is when a government try to push through legislation when most of the elected people are away on holiday. What is democratic about that when it is pushed through knowing when not everybody can vote it out because they aren't there? Democracy my ass!