Another issue not talked about near enough is actually tied to the corruption and that is the process is so tainted that good candidates never get the opportunity (or desire) to get on the ballot because as presently constituted if you do not go through the Democratic or Republican party process, you cannot get elected for the most part and certainly not to the Senate or the Presidency. The present electoral system is so tainted by lobbyist and campaign financing that you have to be a) wealthy and b) so idealogically diluted, power hungry and shameless that whoever emerges is not the type of candidate that us regular people can get excited about. In other words, when you do not have anyone worthy to vote for on the ballot, what difference does it make? Of course, my answer is to just simply refuse to ever vote for a major party candidate again. Now, who has the guts to join me?
"Guts"? The nice thing about secret ballots is they don't require courage.
There are many people trying to reform the incumbent parties from within. If one of them shows up on a ballot a blanket pledge to never support anyone on that ticket would make it impossible to support that effort.
I don't care who gets credit, I want results. And I never look for simple answers to complex questions. They fit on bumper stickers but they're usually wrong.
Another issue not talked about near enough is actually tied to the corruption and that is the process is so tainted that good candidates never get the opportunity (or desire) to get on the ballot because as presently constituted if you do not go through the Democratic or Republican party process, you cannot get elected for the most part and certainly not to the Senate or the Presidency. The present electoral system is so tainted by lobbyist and campaign financing that you have to be a) wealthy and b) so idealogically diluted, power hungry and shameless that whoever emerges is not the type of candidate that us regular people can get excited about. In other words, when you do not have anyone worthy to vote for on the ballot, what difference does it make? Of course, my answer is to just simply refuse to ever vote for a major party candidate again. Now, who has the guts to join me?
I had other parties on my ballot (I selected Gary Johnson for Pres last time around). If just 55% of the people that don't vote would do the same thing we would have new leadership.
Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier if we just got everyone to vote for decent candidates? If people stopped voting for a candidate because they hate the other guy more we would have better leaders (or at least different). Your method is asking the already acknowledged corrupt parties do things against their self interest. Mine uses already established processes to throw those corrupt people out.
Yes it would be easier to vote people out. But history shows that will not happen.
One of the center pieces of the LA's is to institute Term Limits. Until that happens, I really believe nothing will change.
The other primary change is to return to the system where US Senators are appointed by their state's government. I forget exactly which Amendment created that change in the first place.
As Levin states, the Framers anticipated what is presently happening and put this part of Article V in place for this need. It may come down to using it.
Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier if we just got everyone to vote for decent candidates? If people stopped voting for a candidate because they hate the other guy more we would have better leaders (or at least different). Your method is asking the already acknowledged corrupt parties do things against their self interest. Mine uses already established processes to throw those corrupt people out.
Another issue not talked about near enough is actually tied to the corruption and that is the process is so tainted that good candidates never get the opportunity (or desire) to get on the ballot because as presently constituted if you do not go through the Democratic or Republican party process, you cannot get elected for the most part and certainly not to the Senate or the Presidency. The present electoral system is so tainted by lobbyist and campaign financing that you have to be a) wealthy and b) so idealogically diluted, power hungry and shameless that whoever emerges is not the type of candidate that us regular people can get excited about. In other words, when you do not have anyone worthy to vote for on the ballot, what difference does it make? Of course, my answer is to just simply refuse to ever vote for a major party candidate again. Now, who has the guts to join me?
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Wouldn't it be a whole lot easier if we just got everyone to vote for decent candidates? If people stopped voting for a candidate because they hate the other guy more we would have better leaders (or at least different). Your method is asking the already acknowledged corrupt parties do things against their self interest. Mine uses already established processes to throw those corrupt people out.
Last I checked it was Of/By and For the people. If they gave up control to some one else it's up to them to take it back. The mechanism is there, we just need to courage to use it.. I missed your add on:
Hint. It is not the middle or lower class.
the numbers are where the power is. The half of the people that don't vote are the ones most adversely impacted by the policies of the elected. Who's fault is it when people refuse to take action to help themselves?
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof,as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Yes they have. My sentiment is still the same, too.
I consider CA now and then, and then I do the math. I could make it work but I'm not sure it is worth it. I have some good friends who relocated to Folsom a few years ago and are making a good go of it, so it's not impossible. But you are correct that it takes extra effort to make it work there. On the other hand, that is the case with most highly desirable areas.
The funny thing is that the only thing that can put a brake on this group of bankers and elite capitalists (who are actually just doing exactly what they say they are going to do) is government. Government is the mechanism that the people have to regulate large corporate entities. But a majority of the public right now is caught up in this outcry of "smaller government / less regulation". So in essence, the people are getting exactly what they are asking for.
I think it is largely from a misguided understanding of how things do work and a lottery mentality that makes people believe they will luck into being an elite capitalist and don't want to close the door until they get through.
Until people ask for something different from their .gov nothing will change.
ok i'll ask
can we stop with all of the political corporate cronyism?
the problem with banking is that government has granted them a monopoly of sorts when it comes to money creation
a bit of a nebulous subject
(i think this is a video that may explain it conceptually)
Last I checked it was Of/By and For the people. If they gave up control to some one else it's up to them to take it back. The mechanism is there, we just need to courage to use it.. I missed your add on:
Hint. It is not the middle or lower class.
the numbers are where the power is. The half of the people that don't vote are the ones most adversely impacted by the policies of the elected. Who's fault is it when people refuse to take action to help themselves?
The funny thing is that the only thing that can put a brake on this group of bankers and elite capitalists (who are actually just doing exactly what they say they are going to do) is government. Government is the mechanism that the people have to regulate large corporate entities. But a majority of the public right now is caught up in this outcry of "smaller government / less regulation". So in essence, the people are getting exactly what they are asking for.
I think it is largely from a misguided understanding of how things do work and a lottery mentality that makes people believe they will luck into being an elite capitalist and don't want to close the door until they get through.
Until people ask for something different from their .gov nothing will change.
Edit: Just to be preemptive, I'm not asking for more or bigger government.I'm just hoping that people realize this is the outcome of a laissez-faire regulation and management policy. We don't need more of what's not working, we need a different approach. Until someone with a different approach gets some votes nothing is going to change.
The funny thing is that the only thing that can put a brake on this group of bankers and elite capitalists (who are actually just doing exactly what they say they are going to do) is government. Government is the mechanism that the people have to regulate large corporate entities. But a majority of the public right now is caught up in this outcry of "smaller government / less regulation". So in essence, the people are getting exactly what they are asking for.
I think it is largely from a misguided understanding of how things do work and a lottery mentality that makes people believe they will luck into being an elite capitalist and don't want to close the door until they get through.
Until people ask for something different from their .gov nothing will change.
Edit: Just to be preemptive, I'm not asking for more or bigger government.I'm just hoping that people realize this is the outcome of a laissez-faire regulation and management policy. We don't need more of what's not working, we need a different approach. Until someone with a different approach gets some votes nothing is going to change.
And who owns the government? Hint. It is not the middle or lower class.
What the frell. The opener for this thread a little over 4 years ago, since it has popped up again after being dormant for awhile.
My sentiment is unchanged.
kurtster wrote:
As California goes, so goes the country, eventually. As a multi generational native Californian, I have heard it all my life. While that in itself is no big deal anymore, everyone is from somewhere originally, and that's where me and the old lady are from. Heck, our grandson is a Seventh Generation native. So it is somewhat relevant to my point of view even today. No disrespect to the other multi - generational California natives over the meaningful age of 40 something. I don't claim to speak for you. Anyone else who claims to be a first generation native under the age of 40 and calls it "Cali", you don't know what I'm talking about.
Here it is. California is the crucible for President Obama's policies and also the spectre of unfunded mandates. Arnold is taking the state to places no one has gone before. When I was a kid, the state was the world's 5th largest economy, now it has slipped to 8th.
California is broke with a $24 Billion deficit, which includes an unfunded and federally mandated safety net of social services for illegal immigrants that costs the state from $6 to $9 Billion annually. Arnold went to see the president and asked for $7 or $8 Billion dollars, which is oddly enough the same amount of these unfunded mandates. The President basically told Arnold to pound salt. In 6 weeks, the state runs out of money, with Arnold promising a plethora of cuts in services to resident citizens as well as massive layoffs to government workers, turning prisoners loose (especially illegal immigrants to be turned over to federal authorities for deportation), all the while loudly promising to maintain services for the illegal immigrants as mandated by federal law. The pie is only so big and some are being shoved away from the dinner table. Funny how the ones being pushed away from the table paid for it. I find this an excellent way to bring the issue of unfunded federal mandates and illegal immigrants to a head. Arnold, a legal immigrant, is being so shrewd in this approach.
The sanctuary cities can tax their own residents to maintain their status, and leave the rest of the California's citizens free of that burden. Don't like it?, then move out. There already has been precedent for illegals squatting and acquiring legal possession of a citizen's property. So just leave peacefully, they can take your stuff and you can't do anything about it. That OK with you, Nancy? If you wanted Arnold to have the money to save your adopted (you carpet bagging east coast carpet bag) and my home state, why that should be a cinch, eh granny? Move back to Baltimore and fix the problems you brought west with you.
Will Obama keep his promise and let California go to hell and bankrupt all in the same day, or will he cave in and bail out the state, in the fashion of AIG and Government Motors? And if he does, will Arnold accept the strings attached in return for the money or will he tell the President to pound salt, California is too big to fail, we will do it Arnold's way ?
Pay attention folks, this is the future of our country. Most of our states are on the verge of insolvency as well as California. Some are talking about ceding from the Union. States' rights are being destroyed. Who is gonna blink in this game of chicken? Arnold or Obama? My money is on Arnold to come out on top in this opening round and get the money.
Look into the crystal ball of the future, which California is. Like what you see ? 6 weeks and counting down.
OBTW: I really don't hate Obama, he's just a transparent version of Bush. Pelosi on the otherhand, if I saw her standing in front of a puddle at a bus stop, well, you can be sure that she would get soaked.
These are my opinions based upon observation. You want facts, go find them yourself. Just remember, it was once a fact that 99% of all heroin addicts started on mother's milk. Just shows how relevant some facts can be.
There are some that think that is the ultimate goal of an international group of bankers and capitalists elite. Complete elimination of the middle class with a small ruling class lording over indentured serfs, basically a return to the Middle Ages. Those people wear tin foil hats though cause we all know that will never happen.
The funny thing is that the only thing that can put a brake on this group of bankers and elite capitalists (who are actually just doing exactly what they say they are going to do) is government. Government is the mechanism that the people have to regulate large corporate entities. But a majority of the public right now is caught up in this outcry of "smaller government / less regulation". So in essence, the people are getting exactly what they are asking for.
I think it is largely from a misguided understanding of how things do work and a lottery mentality that makes people believe they will luck into being an elite capitalist and don't want to close the door until they get through.
Until people ask for something different from their .gov nothing will change.
Edit: Just to be preemptive, I'm not asking for more or bigger government.I'm just hoping that people realize this is the outcome of a laissez-faire regulation and management policy. We don't need more of what's not working, we need a different approach. Until someone with a different approach gets some votes nothing is going to change.
There are some that think that is the ultimate goal of an international group of bankers and capitalists elite. Complete elimination of the middle class with a small ruling class lording over indentured serfs, basically a return to the Middle Ages. Those people wear tin foil hats though cause we all know that will never happen.
There are some that think that is the ultimate goal of an international group of bankers and capitalists elite. Complete elimination of the middle class with a small ruling class lording over indentured serfs, basically a return to the Middle Ages. Those people wear tin foil hats though cause we all know that will never happen.
A common expression once heard in California was 'surf's up'. Now the spelling and meaning has since changed.
They've all but eliminated the middle class. To live in the state, you're either uber-rich, or living on state assistance. So sad.
There are some that think that is the ultimate goal of an international group of bankers and capitalists elite. Complete elimination of the middle class with a small ruling class lording over indentured serfs, basically a return to the Middle Ages. Those people wear tin foil hats though cause we all know that will never happen.