That puts even more power in the hands of lobbyists and professional Congressional staffers.
A Mitt Romney and Condoleeza Rice ticket?
- Thread starter Beantown
- Start date
That puts even more power in the hands of lobbyists and professional Congressional staffers.
Ban lobyists and each new representative should hire/bring their own staffers with them. They go when the representative goes. Put the votes on opposing years so that there is a bunch with two years under their belt when the "rookies" come in.
Donations and money spent should be capped. This is NOT the MLB, and whoever can spend the most wins. It's a joke.
Donations from corporations should be banned immediately. That is one area that I was proud to focus on during my campaign this year -- I didn't take a single penny from the businesses in the city, but everyone else did. Now those elected officials have a debt to repay to those businesses, at the expense of doing the right thing. It's worthless.
Donations from corporations should be banned immediately. That is one area that I was proud to focus on during my campaign this year -- I didn't take a single penny from the businesses in the city, but everyone else did. Now those elected officials have a debt to repay to those businesses, at the expense of doing the right thing. It's worthless.
trigg3r
Well-Known Member
Agreed. I personally believe lobbying should be illegal. I am sure many lobbyists don't share my POV.
trigg3r
Well-Known Member
Good for you. I wish more would follow your example. You now actually answer to the people who elected you and not the business that pushed to get you elected. There should obviously be caps on all elections as well. Obama is supposedly going to have one billion dollars to use in order to try to get himself re-elected. How can we seriously elect a President that supposedly represents us when they have a billion dollars of political favors to repay?
I read the first link, and he was expressing that he goes out of his way to make whites feel comfortable around him by changing certain behaviors or making himself appear to be as absolutely safe as he can. I don't see how that applies in most areas of Oakland, other than the hills and the Piedmont's of the world. In that city blacks are the majority, and being white and having gone to areas like West Oakland I can safely say they don't change behaviors there. Why should they, they are the majority in those neighborhoods.
A lot of "progressives" are secretly cultivating a profession of believing in "Marxism", which they think justifies lying about their beliefs in order to achieve their actual purposes.
My buddy actually believed, in a religious sense, in the existence of inexorable natural principles which anticipates that people will change their natures somehow and stop calling stuff their own. It's a fantasy religion, but a human can believe it if he wants to, it just doesn't exist outside those believing skulls anywhere. It makes a great foil to work with in the hands of progressives like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, British Agent Obama, and other fascists who think they are the chosen agents of change . My buddy actually believed the part about the future when there would be no government, and considered the regimes of communist Russia, China and Cuba "Statist" false-flag "communist". But our current CFR statists, whether marxist, progressive, fascist, or socialist or even "conservative", are all fluid "thinkers" with shifting ideals that conform to their backers' wishes. There may be factions with differing ideals for the future, but they all resolutely believe the future is theirs, not ours.
Fundamentally, they all consider the Constitution an obstacle to progress, and the people as a herd to be managed and directed, by appropriately serviceable media, education, and government authority. But they can variously laud the Constitution and the unfettered power of government simultaneously until the votes are cast. Anyone who stands in the muck of their cult of superior authority and considers it theirs to manage for their own purposes is fundamentally a different kind of being than an "American", at least in regards to their oath to defend the Constitution. Idiot, or Liar. but not someone who is serving the ideals once put forth in the Declaration of Independence or the various principles associated with human rights and limited government that is a servant not a master to the people.
We've always had regimes that took the world as theirs, and the people in it as theirs. The examples of places and times when human beings actually considered it their privilege to change their governments have been few. Usually the "change" has been short-lived and disappointing, because one way or another it seems there are always "interests" who contrive somehow to achieve inordinate impacts on the government for their own benefits.
But they always call it progress when they are achieving that special purpose. And, somehow, it always costs you something, when they do.
Then, very little will get done. There will be no one with experience, meaning no one who knows how to broker deals, find compromises, and bring people together. Instead of worrying aobut keeping their seat. Congresspeople will be worried about making sure they hav a living after Congress. When things get difficult, Congress will be able to do nothing.
Even in cities like Oakland, people with darker skin are disproportionately arrested, harrassed, etc. They do change their behavior to try to be less noticeable. The second link talked about a young mans experiences in New York City.
So pretty much like it is now? Well at least we will save money on all the lifetime healthcare and pensions.
Congress goes through phases, but even now some work is getting done.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Even the most optimistic person would I believe find difficulty in finding accomplishments done by this Congress. Things are real bad right now.