So much in here that I want to respond to...
|Originally posted by Fats:|
To ensure a more free election, simply only allow donations to the person running to only come from the area they are running in. No limits on anything. If a Corporation wishes to give money, they must follow the rules as if they are a person.
Someone running for City Council can only get donations from people who live in the city.
Someone running for State Senate can only get money from people that live in that State.
Someone running for Federal office (only the President) can get money from anywhere in the US.
My opinion on pay hasn't changed but I have added to it.
I completely agree. This is particularly because a lot of the corporations that donate do so because they expect something in return. I am 100% a capitalist, but there is a very distinct difference between a corporation and an individual. When an individual donates, it's usually because they have a specific feeling / belief that they are trying to support. When I donate money to a political campaign, it's not because I expect that I'll get something in return that will benefit me directly. Why I do it is because I want the ideals to succeed, which I believe will help everyone.
When a corporation donates, it is done so usually through agreement of the board of directors, and is with the obvious expectation that the company will benefit or profit from the end result.
More importantly, it's ridiculous when Littletown, Missouri gets bombarded with millions of dollars to support a Marxist / Leftist politician who would normally never be given a second look by anyone in the community... but because the airwaves have been bombarded from out-of-state money, it manipulates the public. Even when things are misrepresented (and there have been many like this), it's too late or not enough to push back against the propaganda.
|Originally posted by maryjane:|
Civil War isn't always a military or even violent endeavor. "Mostly' bloodless Social civil wars have been pretty common place thru out history in any number of nations, even during your lifetime. The most notable, being the fall of the Soviet Union and the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, but that was not nearly the only one. One I remember clearly was the ouster of Ferdinand Marcos from his 20 year control of the Philippines, which was 14 years beyond his legal tenure..
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
It may change somewhat, but it will not end.
The genie is out of the bottle and has been for some time....the only difference is that many have not realized it or accepted it.
I suppose you're right. To be specific though, I believe the predominant forces here want the elimination of the American way, because they see our system of Government as the greatest roadblock to implementing some form of global socialist movement. It's impossible to advocate for an aristocratic-style of Socialist government when these countries continue to fail, all while the United States continue to succeed.
If I was a staunch Socialist, or a Communist... my target would absolutely 100% be the United States Constitution, and the culture that supports it. I would do everything in my power to shut it down, change people's opinion of it, and focus all my energy on the destabilization of that ideology. From the perspective you suggest, I think we've been at war well before my lifetime... and we're still fighting it. it's crazy to me how acceptable Communism is to kids today. I have a Twitter addiction, and I'm constantly seeing people with the sickle and hammer in their name banner. They vehemently believe Communism is a more equitable form of Government. These people legitimately believe Communism is the way to fairness... ?
|Originally posted by Fats:|
Remember in 2016 when we were told it would all end if Trump just stepped down?
That's small enough math that I can do it on my fingers, four years of rioting later, nothing has changed. We still don't have Representation on the Right. Anyone we think is "good enough" will eventually stab our party in the back for a book deal.
This is one of the reasons why Trump is considered so dangerous to Democrats. Before Trump, Republicans always cowered and did things "the right way." The things that Democrats do are all based on the concept of "the end justifies the means." They even say this. That Trump is using the exact same tactics that the left have been using for decades now, is the biggest threat to their ability to be successful in the future. Trump's ideology threatens to make the Republicans AS aggressive and perhaps unscrupulous as the Democrats have been all along. They cannot compete when we use their own tactics against them.
|Originally posted by Fats:|
Change the pay scale to match the people in the districts that they hold office in. The wealthiest district in the country only averages 79k a year in income. Congressional pay starts above 170k.
The highest Average State income is just over 85k a year.
Want to help the lower and middle class? Really represent them.
100% true, and I cannot agree more. There are some differences of course, where some Federal employees make less than their counterparts, such as in areas of Science and Technology, but in almost every other category... Federal employees by FAR make substantially more than their private sector counterparts.
In some respects, the Federal government (Democrats) see this as wealth re-distribution. They hire people into positions that typically would never even exist in the private sector, or that typically wouldn't be needed. They have these government buildings often in poor areas. They see this as a means to bringing money into economically depressed areas. While not necessarily a bad idea, the fact that there are so many people who are employed that rather shouldn't be, creates a huge financial burden.
Republicans have been guilty of this as well... having created a substantial number of Federal organizations and offices over the past few decades. Nixon created the EPA, Bush created DHS, and now we have a whole new military branch called Space Force. While I agree with all of them, the problem is that Government just doesn't shrink... it only grows. You only have to look at how amazingly successful the "Contract for America" was when Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich agreed to the reformation of Federal government. Yes, we did it during an economic boon, but at least for a year and a half, we had a budget surplus and were actually able to pay down debt, rather than exponentially adding to it.
What Trump's EO has done, is far more reaching than most people realize. For many specialized positions, specifically in science and technology, hiring someone with a degree is a huge benefit... but it comes with a cost. In the Federal government, you have work roles, job categories, and either a GS/GG or Pay Band ranking. When you hire someone with a degree, they automatically qualify for higher grades and bands. This means the Federal Government has to pay them more. For positions in STEM, it's understandable... but for positions where mechanical, janitorial, administrative, HR, etc... can all be done easily by someone who has proper certifications and no degrees, or prior skill / experience, you just don't need those liberal arts / non-specialization degrees. When they hire specifically for degrees, they are far more likely to get students who are liberal (because "perpetual students") and automatically have to pay more for those positions than someone who has the skills but not the degree. We know of course this creates a massive pressure for people to get liberal arts degrees, which is partly the reason we are in the position we are currently in. I'm not bashing degrees... I have several... but not all positions need degrees.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 06-28-2020).]