Resetting our gover...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Resetting our government/political system back to a more representative government?

57 Posts
18 Users
22 Likes
3,343 Views
Posts: 21
Topic starter
(@308code)
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 years ago

What is the quickest action we can take to reset our government/political system back to a more representative government?

 

56 Replies
Posts: 21
Topic starter
(@308code)
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 years ago

Get rid of gerrymandering. 

Reply
Posts: 1
(@mvphap)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago

Term limits 

Reply
5 Replies
(@madhavan)
Joined: 2 years ago

New Member
Posts: 1

@mvphap I think term limits makes the permanent bureaucracy more powerful.

Reply
MJAlexander
(@mjalexander)
Joined: 2 years ago

Active Member
Posts: 6

@madhavan Yes, you're right, under our current system, BUT if Congress were to actually do its job of agency oversight, it would greatly reduce / restrict the size, scope and regulatory authority of the Deep State, proposing, debating and passing legislation instead of handing the "details" off to the Executive.

Reply
MJAlexander
(@mjalexander)
Joined: 2 years ago

Active Member
Posts: 6

@mvphap Yes, Term Limits for all federal officials, elected or appointed, to include the Judiciary, PLUS the elimination of unions for federal employees. Serving in our federal government should be a contribution, not a career, by people who come from the cities and towns across the nation, then return to them to live under the laws and regulations they helped to create.

Reply
(@ronp_nationalpostnews-com)
Joined: 1 year ago

New Member
Posts: 2

amen!

Reply
(@308code)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 21

@mvphap  I must say I have always been against term limits, I have always been of the opinion that we do have term limits every two, four or 6 years.  But now with the press that we currently have, elections are not the silver bullet that they should be.  Thus, I too am now in favor of term limits.

Reply
Posts: 1
 Yord
(@yord)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago
Reply
4 Replies
(@twopiecenosoda)
Joined: 2 years ago

New Member
Posts: 1
Posted by: @yord

Article V convention of states: Article V of the U.S. Constitution - COSAction (conventionofstates.com)

This is the correct answer. If you have any true "want to" to change the current political system, your best/fastest/maybe only option is to start with Article V.

 

Spend time on the COS website that @yord linked above.

 

You want term limits, it's a possibility. You want to eliminate "redistricting/gerrymandering" a possibility. Section 230 reform, can be debated. Balanced budgets, they are on the agenda.

 

The more I read and learn, the more I realize that this is the answer. And, more importantly, it's the answer our Framers intended to use in this EXACT scenario.

Reply
(@agileadmin)
Joined: 2 years ago

New Member
Posts: 2

@twopiecenosoda 100% correct!

Reply
MJAlexander
(@mjalexander)
Joined: 2 years ago

Active Member
Posts: 6

@yord Yes... much-needed remedial amendments MUST be proposed, debated, and submitted to the states for further debate and eventual ratification (or rejection). And an Article V Convention of States to Propose Amendments is the only way this can happen, because Congress will never regulate itself. It's the only way to correct the wandering course of this great nation. We've just seen the impermanence of Executive Orders... with the stroke of a pen, they are created and / or wiped away. THAT is not the way a representative republic is supposed to work, whether we like the policies or not.

Reply
(@308code)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 21

@yord  I like it as well.  My only fear is that we would end up right back where we are.  I would need more info about what we would be moving to.  Hope and change is just a platitude unless you know what you are changing too, I feel the same way with just saying Article V.

Reply
Mutchler
Posts: 34
(@mutchler)
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 years ago

I believe there is only one way to get this government back to what the founders planned!  We need Honesty brought into “politics”.

Sheryl Attkisson said something that kind of disappointed me about politics.  She said once someone got to Washington, they were beholden to the party!  Couldn’t get assigned to committees, bring bills up for a vote or do much of anything, without agreeing with the party leadership!  Raising money (from a list of donors give to them) for the party.  If you didn’t toe the line, you would be primaried!  Basically you’re useless unless you agreed with them.

We need a method of “Snoping” what politicians say and do!  But, in a way that everyone would trust?  We need honest political leaders and celebrities from all sides of the political spectrum that would steer voters to this new “entity”!  It would rate politicians based on what they said and did, not what part of the political spectrum they are on or there policies.  Voter would select candidates based on an honesty rating.  I truly believe that everyone wants their politicians to be honest with them.  If they do what they promised, will that make them happy?  I think by looking at California, we can see that isn’t working!  Even for people that initially supported the leftists agenda.

I have been mulling this over for over 10 years and have lots of ideas on how this would work. Does this make sense to anyone?  Do you know of a dozen or so “honest politicians and/or celebrities” from all walks of life?

Yea or Nay

 

Reply
11 Replies
Mutchler
(@mutchler)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 34

BTW, my idea wouldn’t require politicians to do anything!  At all!  No new laws, no amendments to the constitution, nothing!

Reply
(@shiroe)
Joined: 2 years ago

New Member
Posts: 4

@mutchler I think this could be accomplished if the government, from the Oval Office to the bathroom door at the basement of the NSA building, were surveilled at all times by video. Anyone anywhere can go to a website and/or TV channel and watch what our politicians and other government agents are doing, no matter what it is. No more secrets, full transparency.

Reply
MJAlexander
(@mjalexander)
Joined: 2 years ago

Active Member
Posts: 6

@shiroe Looks good on paper, and I'm sure China / Russia would love it...

Reply
 Joy
(@joy)
Joined: 2 years ago

New Member
Posts: 1

@mutchler   This is a great idea.

Reply
(@308code)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 21

@mutchler I forgot that I hadn't asked you about how would this system rate the faux attempt.  Joe Mansion and Robert Byrd are and were, respectively, masters at this.  By the faux attempt I'm talking about when a vote doesn't matter the politician will vote one way but when the vote does matter they never break from the parties position?

Reply
MJAlexander
(@mjalexander)
Joined: 2 years ago

Active Member
Posts: 6

@mutchler As always, the devil is in the details... the Who and How need a little more development. And right from the start, a definition of "honesty" as it would apply to any political actor would need specific definition in order to cover statements and actions of an aspirant AND statements and actions once elected. And that's before you even BEGIN your search for these "judges."

Reply
Mutchler
(@mutchler)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 34

@mjalexander I have all that thought out.  Basically if they say something during a campaign or after election, then vote (or make a statement) the opposite way, it will be counted as a lie.  If they truly switch their position and can explain the point they changed, then we could give them “half credit”.  As far as the “judges”, they would be honest people from all political persuasions.  Multiple judges would decide if it’s a lie or not.  If someone disagrees with the group (maybe 3 or 4), then a Board would make the final decision.  Basically, this would stop politicians from making a statement to one group, then making the opposite statement to a different group.  And since ALL politicians would be judged the same way, omnibus bills would be eliminated.

Reply
MJAlexander
(@mjalexander)
Joined: 2 years ago

Active Member
Posts: 6

@mutchler I really like the way you think, and my gut response to this is that it's a great idea... on paper. It occurs to me that this policy might not survive a constitutional challenge. As absurd as this may sound, the First Amendment actually protects a politician's right to lie! Of all the categories of utterances that the Founders could have chosen to protect, they chose "political speech." As Justice Black stated in Mills v. State of Alabama, “Whatever differences may exist about interpretations of the First Amendment, there is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of that Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Political speech includes discussions of candidates, the form of government, how government should be run, and any other discussion of the political process. These forms of speech are afforded the strongest protection. Go figure...

Reply
Mutchler
(@mutchler)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 34

@mjalexander I agree about the first amendment!  It does give you a right to lie.  But my idea doesn’t prevent politicians from lying.  Doesn’t create any laws etc.  just let’s the voters know whether they lied or not!  It just let’s the voters know if they promised to increase taxes on individuals that make more than $1,000,000 per year, then vote to decrease the rate in a bill.  No constitutional challenge!

Remember, I’ve had to think this through for over 10 years, and I think I got all the answers.

Reply
(@308code)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 21

@mutchler The big issue I have with this is who determines what is a lie.  Have you ever heard the expression; There are liars, damn liars and statisticians.  The point behind this is that you can twist the numbers to make them say just about anything you want on any issue you want, thus would they be lying or not?  Without a press that can be counted on to point out the misleading nature of any particular position, the politician would get away with deception and never have actually lied.  Not to mention a public that understands and has enough of a attention span to track through the deception the politician will get away with it.  I still think the best way (by no means does it solve all issues) is to remove gerrymandering and thus most safe seats, requiring politicians to be more civil to the other side.

Reply
Mutchler
(@mutchler)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 34

@308code that is the only problem I see with this.  But if I’m involved in starting it, I know everyone involved will honest.  But how do you prevent dishonesty from creeping in?  Especially once I’m not involved anymore.

Reply
Posts: 1
(@guitarman60)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago

I don't know that there is a "Quick" way to fix the problems that have developed in our government over the last two centuries.

Generations of politicians have bent and tweaked the system into a prostituted mockery of what it was meant to be. It's become such a morass of perverted corruption that the only way to save it, is to tear it all down.

We'll have to remove every politician from office. Fire every head of every agency. Root out the bad actors in the bureaucracy from the top to the bottom. We'll have to restrict the ability of those in government to make changes in the system favorable to them. Yes, there would have to be a "Watchdog" arm to keep an eye on them. Maybe re-purpose the IRS? Even the courts would have to be purged of partisan actors. We would have to go through all the laws and remove a vast swath of them.

Then we would have to do the same at the state level, where necessary.

Reply
2 Replies
Mutchler
(@mutchler)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 34

@guitarman60 I think that we could “fix” things within 2 election cycles with my plan.  Our representatives would have to (weed out) the bureaucrats.

Reply
Mutchler
(@mutchler)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 34

Let me restate that!  If the election process is fixed, then the problem can be fixed within 2 election cycles.

Reply
Mutchler
Posts: 34
(@mutchler)
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 years ago

I really hate to put my idea out there, just in case their are some nefarious people that want to squash it.  I think I have given enough in different comments for someone that is serious about fixing our current system.  I will answer questions though.

Reply
Posts: 4
(@borvoc)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago

Getting rid of gerrymandering is the answer that everyone comes up with, but I’m not sure it’s as practical as people might assume. The problem comes in distinguishing between sensible redistricting and gerrymandering. It’s kind of a subjective judgement. I remember a couple years back a few women who were clearly democrat activists standing outside my farmers’ market handing out pamphlets on the topic, but did thees activists really care about gerrymandering, or did they just want the gerrymandering to be done by democrats, in which case they would claim it wasn’t gerrymandering? We all know how this works in the media.

Term limits is another answer, but with how well-oiled the democrat machine is, I’m sure they’ll be able to churn out replacement suits to take over for those leaving office much more quickly than republicans will be able to find constitution-minded conservatives to take the place of their predecessors. It’s possible that term limits could nonetheless get rid of the incumbent advantage, but that also could do more to hurt conservatism than liberalism/socialism. This is because, while both parties would lose the incumbent advantage, the democrats would quickly make up for it in mass-media positive coverage of their candidates, while republican, having lost that incumbent advantage, would likely just cede their seats to media-whitewashed democrats pushing socialism.

It’s been a while in coming for me, but I’ve come to the conclusion that in the end, the only thing that can save America is the thing that made America in the first place: a moral and religious people. As John Adams famously said, our Constitution is wholly inadequate for the governance of anyone else. You don’t have to believe in God to see the benefits of freedom, but you do have to believe in God to have any support for the moral absolutes upon which freedom must be based. Our founders were smart in setting up checks and balances, and those mechanisms are very useful in holding back people who respect them, but for a people filled with lies and jealousy, who lack even the basis for morality, I fear these checks and balances are only obstacles that will be overrun in time, and not much at that.

Unfortunately, I think this means we need to go back before we can go forward. While not abandoning national politics, I think we need to turn our focus to our local communities and build them up while strengthening our own lives and the people around us. Go to church, be a part of your community, get involved in local politics. Dr. Faust, or whatever his name is, lied to the American people about what percentage of the population he thought would need to reach herd ammunity before the country could open up again. He later revised his estimate upward, stating that he was convinced people were finally ready to hear what he actually thought.

Stop being ready. Stop conforming to the world around you and instead be transformed by the renewing of your mind, and having done so, renew your community as well. I think we have to start again from there. When our betters in Washington tell us to do this or that, our communities need to be strong enough to stand up and say no to the point that Washington stops trying and even the bad people in politics have to go along with the will of a moral people. I think that’s what the Bibe means when it talks about giving us peace with our enemies. There is only peace when the good are in control and even the wicked are forced by necessity to cooperate. The funny thing is that this ends up benefiting everyone, including the wicked, who are saved in some part from their own wickedness.

Anyway, sorry for the long flow of consciousness.

Reply
4 Replies
Mutchler
(@mutchler)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 34

@borvoc Very much agree!  That is why we need honest people in Washington.  Gerrymandering and term limits will be corrected or in the case of term limits, will not matter if who you vote for is honest!  How many time do we like what someone says, but when they get to Washington, that all changes.  If we require them to be honest, it won’t change in Washington.  Or they won’t get re-elected!  My plan requires honesty!

Of course a religious people are likely to be more honest!

Reply
(@308code)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 21

@borvoc I do agree that the people becoming more religious (or at a minimum a more moral) is the ultimate solution.  Our founders said that this system of government is only for a religious people.  I disagree with the complexity of implementing a gerrymandering restriction.  Simply use rectangles, with restrictions on width and length ratios.

Reply
(@borvoc)
Joined: 2 years ago

New Member
Posts: 4

@308code, theoretically, I agree about gerrymandering, but when you get down to the brass tacks, you have to justify how big a district is, what shape it should be, whether or not population density should be taken into consideration—or culture for that matter,  what to do when you run up against a large body of water or other obstruction. What one person sees as common sense, another will see as gerrymandering, and both will likely be influenced by whatever outcome he wants. It might not be impossible, though.

Reply
(@308code)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 21

@borvoc Large non populated regions would just be added to any particular nearby (on any side) representative.  Size doesn't matter 🤣   , at least geographical size, only population matters.  So, some reps would have very tiny Geographical footprint and others would have a larger one.  The main point is that districts need to be made in as few as possible rectangles.  Taking culture into consideration should not be a factor.  A rep represents their district, if there were more cultures represented within a a reps district, that's all the better, for moderation and cultural understanding.   I agree that as of now gerrymandering is in the eye of the beholder.  That's where a more mathematical solution would remove this hurdle.

Reply
Posts: 3
(@acoustictide)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago

How about this... create a “party" based on a similar idea of an index fund.. basically raise money and then invest in candidates based on merits rather than party affiliation. Basically make an abstract layer on top of the parties that chooses candidate by candidate and allows them to essentially be independent regardless of the letter behind their names. Of course the problem of not getting placed on committees and therefore the power that goes with it still exists- until enough of these "independents" are elected. 

 

Reply
4 Replies
(@borvoc)
Joined: 2 years ago

New Member
Posts: 4

@acoustictide Apparently, Bernie Sanders is an independant, so it's theoretically possible.

Reply
(@acoustictide)
Joined: 2 years ago

New Member
Posts: 3

@borvoc

True about Bernie. Basically PAC's perform a similar function but are controlled by a powerful few. Would it be possible to do the same as a crowdsource sort of idea is my question- the crowd funds and the crowd votes on candidates and possibly even bills. Edges closer to true democracy I suppose.. the "representational republic" has obviously failed because the reps don't rep the people any longer. Together the "crowd" has similar resources to the powerful and agree more than disagree regardless of what the media has us all thinking. 

Reply
Mutchler
(@mutchler)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 34

@acoustictide I guess my question would be, what are your merits?  My idea will basically do the same thing, but instead of merits, I would use Honesty!  I’m assuming your merits have something to do with policies.  My plan doesn’t care about policies, just let’s voters know if they’ll vote for the policies they mentioned during the campaign.  Then let the voters decide which policies they wanted.  Which I’m assuming most voters 80-90% will agree on 90% of issues when they are discussed honestly!

Reply
(@acoustictide)
Joined: 2 years ago

New Member
Posts: 3

@mutchler

"Merits" is open for definition. 

Reply
Localism Fan
Posts: 3
(@localism-fan)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago

I agree with the posters who emphasize virtue in the citizenry as a precondition. It won't matter if they are given freedom without virtue becuase they will just use that freedom to hurt themselves and others. That said, there are two systemic things we can do to make government representative right away (and 13 things we must do to keep it that way). Both involve decentralization of course.

1) End the federal reserve system and return to honest money, preferably private money with government only there to see that contracts are kept. The state has abused the power over money since Rome begain shaving silver from their denarius. When there is fiat currency, all restraints are off. The politicans will no longer represent the people because the smart ones know that whoever runs the printing press can, if need be, generate a trillion dollars whose value comes from the labors of the very people they intend to cheat. Why did the tech giants not care if they were offending half the population of America (it has cost them about 51 billion in lost stock value). Because those people don't matter nearly as much as those who run the printing presses. Pleasing them matters more than pleasing customers- and it isn't any different with politicians. This is a non-intuitive answer but it is essential. You cannot have central banking and decentralized government. You must choose one or the other. 

2) End First-past-the-post method of determining the winners and have run-offs for all elections, preferably instant-runoffs. Right now the two major parties do not even have to trot out candidates that people love (they'd almost rather not because they want reliable system people who know they need the system). All they have to do is convince you the other label is even more loathsome. The parties don't have to represent anybody! They can just keep serving the folks I talked about in #1.

They have run-offs in their own party primaries, and when electing their own party officers. Why isn't it good enough for the rest of us? This will open the door to giving more parties a fair chance, increasing our chances to be represented. Imagine if Tide and Gain were the only two detergents, McDonald's and Burger King the only two hamburger chains. Fox and CNN the only two cable news channels. 

Reply
11 Replies
Mutchler
(@mutchler)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 34

@localism-fan I agree, must get rid of governments controlling the money supply, also get rid of the Fed.  The only way to prevent the government from going into debt, would be electing “politicians” that prevent that.  If politicians know they won’t get re-elected if they don’t balance the budget, then they will!  Most politicians will do whatever it takes to get re-elected.  Including being honest!  Doing what they promised during the campaign.

Reply
(@308code)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 21

@mutchler With regards to politicians doing whatever it takes to get re-elected, in general I agree.  I would be interested in seeing what a choice a politician would make between making themselves or their family a ton of money and being re-elected.  But this point got me thinking about the problem we would have with something like this.  With a dishonest press a politician can take both sides of "every" issue (what would be the result of the honesty calculator?)  This may seem far fetched but with the current state of the press as well as our educational system not teaching people how to think instead of what to think, I do do believe that the politician can take both sides of a issue, officially and the press will run cover for them, so the public would think they only took one side.

Reply
Mutchler
(@mutchler)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 34

@308code Main stream media will always do what will attract more viewer.  My idea requires a creation of an xyz.com website.  Have several honest celebrities from all political spectrums endorse this entity.  Have several dozen honest people from all political leanings run this website.  Then have this website determine whether the politician didn’t or did do what he/she promised on each issue.  By selecting time span and the ability to drill down, you (the voter) could see what issues they weren’t honest about and why!  

Could an honest liberal call out a liberal politician on something?  If they are honest, yes.  Beside there would be 2 or 3 others verifying the same action.  

Like I said in other posts, I have been thinking about this for over 10 years and have most things figured out.

I think the MSM will eventually start reporting the facts, since most voters will have a way of fact checking them.

Now if we don’t have enough honest people/celebrities left in this country, we’re doomed!

Reply
(@308code)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 21

@mutchler I guess I don't want to put trust/power in people.  Like our founders believed, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Honest people not only can go bad, but eventually die.  Personally I'm looking more for a system that accounts for (ideally that depends on) this aspect of human nature.  This is one spot that the founders didn't for-see, Congress willingly giving it's power away to the executive.  I believe the ultimate solution is for a educated, not indoctrinated, population.  For this purpose I think critical thinking is the most important aspect.  However, the point of this thread was for the quickest solution.  Education reform will take a long long time.  This is why I'm still in favor of the gerrymandering reform.  If a representatives constituency is less partisan the rep will have to be less partisan.

Reply
Mutchler
(@mutchler)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 34

@308code fixing gerrymandering may be a first step.  But who decides these districts?  Usually it’s the people we elect or they appoint.  And I agree that a well educated populous is best.  And having a place to get honest information is preferable.  A quick fix may not be the best solution.  Maybe a 2-4 year fix is needed.

Reply
(@308code)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 21

@mutchler  Districts would be decided by mathematics (using the census as data set).  The only really odd instances would be the state edge districts, only the inner portion would be able to have the rectangular shape.  But this is a trivial issue and easily defined to avoid abuse. 

Our press is effectively dead to me, I honestly don't know if I will ever be able to trust them again.  So, for me the solution needs to avoid trust in the press or any institution.

I agree this isn't a cure all but it seems to me to be the most realistic solution and seams to offer the most bang for our political  buck, so to speak.  But, there would be much more needed.  We allowed this system to be continually broken over many many many decades (really ramped up during the Wilson administration and onward), the ultimate solution will take a cultural shift as well as a political one, which will take time.

Reply
Mutchler
(@mutchler)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 34

@308code Actually the press is dead to me also.  But we have to trust some “institution” somewhere!  Unless you witness everything yourself and make a determination yourself.  You’ll have to trust someone or something to provide you with that information.  Now I think we should makeup our own minds, but we need the info from somewhere!

We need something we can trust, something we can keep inline.  I don’t know if it’s possible, but that is what my idea does.

As far as laying out the districts, I like your idea.  But who will implement the plan.  Politicians will still be involved.  My plan at least creates honest politicians.

Reply
(@308code)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 21

@mutchler I agree you have to trust someone at sometime.  But the concept of this topic was how to start getting back to the representative government that our founders began.  To me it seems like creating a whole new structure would be more involved and thus take longer to get the desired results, than just modifying the base structural  beam of the current system.

To me just thinking about the process of getting it adopted, it would be much harder to be against removing this system that allows for ridiculous districts to be formed.  Not to mention the main benefit of greatly reducing the number of safe seats that exist in the country.

Reply
Mutchler
(@mutchler)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 34

@308code My plan doesn’t change anything!  Just giving voters more information on who they vote for.  No new laws, no getting rid of gerrymandering, no constitutional issues, nothing!

Reply
Localism Fan
(@localism-fan)
Joined: 2 years ago

New Member
Posts: 3

@mutchler fiat money when we are a reserve currency allows them to run up debt while hiding the consequences for a long time. Thus people don't see the cost of running up the debt until it is too late. It is an abstraction until it is a tragedy. Honest money would not let them get away with that. Big spenders would have to become big taxers in a hurry. As long as you have a monetary system conducive to hiding fraud, like the one we have now, voters are not going to get the connection between debt and pain until it is too late.

Reply
Mutchler
(@mutchler)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 34

@localism-fan I agree on the debt.  But if a politician promised to decrease debt or pass a balanced budget, then they will have to vote that way.  Or their rating will suffer.  The voter can drill down and see what they lied about, and then decide whether it was something that was important enough not to vote for them. I truly believe my idea can change the way politicians vote.  And change the direction the USA is going.

Reply
zxq9
Posts: 23
 zxq9
(@zxq9)
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 years ago

I posted this on Minds a week ago. https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1193929518324776960

Brainstorming:

Imagine if you could peel back the curtain on two alternatives of the future...

Option 1: Crackdown

In one the government uses the so-called "storming" of the Capitol Building as a pretense to enact endless "emergency powers" of the form we see in authoritarian states, tries to crack down on the enormous number of patriotic veterans and other gun owners supposedly to "calm the nation, solve the COVID crisis, end global warming, fix systemic racism, eradicate toxic masculinity, [more SJW bullshit here]..." The result is, of course, organized political violence the citizens would see as justified and essentially defensive.

Option 2: Strict Constitutionalism

In the other you simply abolish every single policy, activity and agency of the federal government that is not explicitly authorized by the Constitution with the recommendation that states can form their own interstate associations and agencies at will.

Question

Which would be called "too radical" by the MSM: Shooting or freeing Americans?

Reply
Posts: 1
(@ryanwold)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago

TLDR: Like SportsCenter™️, for Government.  Comprehensive stats on every player in the league.

One of the first steps is to understand who and what that representative government consists of. And it depends..

Depending on where a person lives (and I'll assume, the US), several layers of governance applies. (city, county, state, federal, and special districts). There are more than 90,000 jurisdictions in the US. More than 500,000 elected officials.
 
And, each person/citizen brings their own particular perspectives and interests - for example: local school boards or dog parks vs county unincorporated land issues vs state transportation vs. federal tax legislation.

Lots of public information exists. In different places. This is good.
But it is typically not readily usable nor enjoyable.

So, regarding how to support a more representative government, I'm working toward unifying the interface to government. I think this will help improve how public services are discovered, delivered, and assessed. The right data and tools can increase the resolution and fidelity at which our individual and collective voices are promised representation and how we can account for it.

 

Reply
Posts: 21
Topic starter
(@308code)
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 years ago

Another potential help would be single page (defined type-set) bills only.

Reply
1 Reply
Mutchler
(@mutchler)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 34

@308code you know, that could happen!  Imagine that every politician had to keep all their promises.  They would no longer come up with those omnibus bills.  Since there are some things they agree with (at least they said they did) and disagree, they (I mean all of them) wouldn’t want those types of bills to vote for.  So single issue bills is something they would have to come up with if they want to keep close to a 100% honesty rating, so they can get re-elected!

Reply
Posts: 1
 LaRo
(@laro)
New Member
Joined: 2 years ago

To revert the results of the "long march through the institutions" it takes an equally long march back, or, instantaneously cripple the power of these institutions.

If you think it's a strategy to (only) remove the leaders of the institutions, then you have to come up with a strategy by which you find new sound minded and skilled individuals by which to replace them (but again, how do you grow them, and where?). New generations are already brainwashed since the fortresses on the front lines of the culture war, the universities, has already fallen in the hands of the enemies of society.

For this reason I found Larry Sanger's idea about independent examination being an interesting thought, as described in this post:

https://larrysanger.org/2020/12/an-idea-for-theological-self-education/

Traditional employers might respect the official degree, but what if I don’t care about traditional employers?

Why not simply do the study for a particular degree in this way: you develop a portfolio (of some sort) with occasional help from experts, and then sit for a written and oral exam, and portfolio and thesis evaluation, by a panel of three more experts? Then when you say, “Oh, sure, I have an M.Div. But it is an Independent M.Div., or I.M.Div., granted by Jones, Smith, and Brown.” Assuming those three are well-known, then why shouldn’t this be respected as the equivalent of a traditional M.Div. that a thesis committee with those three on it would approve?  [...]  This might be revolutionary; but at this point, it is a revolution that I think needs to happen. We need to make the degree-granting process independent of giant, expensive, and increasingly totalitarian universities.

With this background it's not difficult to understand why a certain new administration wants to reduce or even drop student loans. Ideally, brainwashing to be made free or charge.

Reply
1 Reply
(@308code)
Joined: 2 years ago

Eminent Member
Posts: 21

@laro  This would take awhile and would require adaptation, or better yet exclusion, from many organizations that have a vested interest in not allowing it to happen.  I don't think this is the quickest way to institute change.  I agree education is a real problem, it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing with me.  Is education lost because the press is lost or is the press lost because education has been corrupted and is now lost.  This would be a good topic thread in and of itself.  In short, I agree it's worthy of thought, just not a very quick solution and I worry about how much time we have left as a UNITED States.

Reply
Share: