• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Our governmental system is broken beyond repair.

Thank you for your input on this thread, we value even the least accurate posting as it helps give a greater picture to what's wrong with this world. Even the least of us can contribute in their own small way, thank you for your, well very small contribution. Bye now! :2wave:

Can't argue against any of it can you?

Because you don't understand any of it.

If you put as much effort into actually educating yourself in the fields of economics, science and politics as you did for transgenderism, you might actually get somewhere.

But instead, something actually close to you, something you care about and took great action in your life, you know a lot about.

You understand as much about why America is in its current predicament as you understand about climate change.

That is to say, not much at all.
 
Can't argue against any of it can you?

Because you don't understand any of it.

If you put as much effort into actually educating yourself in the fields of economics, science and politics as you did for transgenderism, you might actually get somewhere.

But instead, something actually close to you, something you care about and took great action in your life, you know a lot about.

You understand as much about why America is in its current predicament as you understand about climate change.

That is to say, not much at all.

Now now, there is no need to insult me. I made a very valid statement and you came in with nonsensical silliness about "pittances for the poor". A common tactic you take; Quote someone, make an argument they aren't making, and then you proceed in striking down that made up argument. When that person dismisses you, justly so I might add, you then double down on accusing them of being stupid and incapable of meeting the challenge. It's hard, you are correct, to defend a position I did not take and beat down the logical fallacy you created just to make your position seem superior.

I have no desire to engage you in defending something I did not say or imply, if you wish to discuss the actual matter I brought up I am more than happy to, but you'd have to put down the rhetorical non-sense you hide behind, that is the real challenge that won't be met today.
 
Now now, there is no need to insult me. I made a very valid statement and you came in with nonsensical silliness about "pittances for the poor". A common tactic you take; Quote someone, make an argument they aren't making, and then you proceed in striking down that made up argument. When that person dismisses you, justly so I might add, you then double down on accusing them of being stupid and incapable of meeting the challenge. It's hard, you are correct, to defend a position I did not take and beat down the logical fallacy you created just to make your position seem superior.

I have no desire to engage you in defending something I did not say or imply, if you wish to discuss the actual matter I brought up I am more than happy to, but you'd have to put down the rhetorical non-sense you hide behind, that is the real challenge that won't be met today.

Goshin created a thread entitled "Our governmental system broken beyond repair".

You then clearly stated, CLEARLY that the cause of all ills, was:

Blame the true holders of power for giving up their power and forgoing their duty in favor of handouts and "entitlements"

No other context, no other cause attributed to the reason for "Governmental system broken beyond repair" except handouts and entitlements.

I rebutted that ridiculous statement by stating what is the real cause and instead of arguing it, you dismissed it completely out of hand because there's no way in hell you could ever hope to argue against it because again, you don't understand any of it :shrug:

You're a die hard economically anarchistic conservative that doesn't understand complex systems of taxation and balances between private business and government and that will remain painfully the case forever I think.
 
The system is broken, and the people in Washington fiddle while we all go down in flames.
 
Goshin created a thread entitled "Our governmental system broken beyond repair".

You then clearly stated, CLEARLY that the cause of all ills, was:



No other context, no other cause attributed to the reason for "Governmental system broken beyond repair" except handouts and entitlements.

I rebutted that ridiculous statement by stating what is the real cause and instead of arguing it, you dismissed it completely out of hand because there's no way in hell you could ever hope to argue against it because again, you don't understand any of it :shrug:

You're a die hard economically anarchistic conservative that doesn't understand complex systems of taxation and balances between private business and government and that will remain painfully the case forever I think.
You created an argument, claimed it was what I meant, and declared it untenable.

And you have again insulted my intelligence.

If you continue to respond in such a degrading and rude manner I will be forced to alert the proper moderators to enforce the forum rules. I didn't start this, you did.

Now I'll try again.

Goshin started a thread I mostly agree with, that the system IS broken.

I believe the system is broken because the VOTERS abdicated their responsibilities and power. They did so in large part for entitlements. Now, I could have expanded on that, and would gladly have done so if asked. I'll ask, just to save us the time:
"Renae, could you define what you mean by entitlements?"
Certainly!

I mean people quit believing they were in charge, in charge of the Government, in charge of their futures and well beings. They gave that up on the promise of getting Medical care paid for, or Social Security, Welfare Benefits, Food stamps, WIC... you name it. A slow creep of voters turning to Washington and the Bureaucracy and political class to "Fix things" and "gimmie gimmie gimmie". This was fueled by BOTH parties catering in their own ways to to the easy vote. It's a LOT easier to get a vote by saying "Vote for me, I'll make sure you get (insert entitled IT that the voter group will respond too). " Than it is to say "Vote for me, I'll get Government out of your way and let opportunity abound."

This mentality has corrupted our political system from the inside out, from top to bottom. I hold the VOTERS accountable in the end, as they are the source of all power in our Government, by the Constitution.

Now, if you wish to discuss that, I am more then willing too. If you wish to insult me further, well... I leave that to the proper parties to correct.
 
You created an argument, claimed it was what I meant, and declared it untenable.

And you have again insulted my intelligence.

No I insulted your lack of understanding on many topics.

Goshin started a thread I mostly agree with, that the system IS broken.

You agree the system is broken, but as is about to become painfully obvious, you just don't understand why.

I believe the system is broken because the VOTERS abdicated their responsibilities and power. They did so in large part for entitlements. Now, I could have expanded on that,

No, I already knew what you meant by entitlements, there was no need to expand, your singular train of thought on the topic has always been painfully ignorant.

I mean people quit believing they were in charge, in charge of the Government, in charge of their futures and well beings. They gave that up on the promise of getting Medical care paid for, or Social Security, Welfare Benefits, Food stamps, WIC... you name it. A slow creep of voters turning to Washington and the Bureaucracy and political class to "Fix things" and "gimmie gimmie gimmie". This was fueled by BOTH parties catering in their own ways to to the easy vote. It's a LOT easier to get a vote by saying "Vote for me, I'll make sure you get (insert entitled IT that the voter group will respond too). " Than it is to say "Vote for me, I'll get Government out of your way and let opportunity abound."

That's simply catchphrase nonsense.

America is not in the predicament it is in, because poor people get some money and assistance from the government, that is an absurd notion.

America is in the predicament it is in, in large part due to an unchecked and predatory form of capitalism, coupled with practically legalizing corruption through Citizens United has lead politicians on both sides to be totally and completely beholden to large corporate interests.

That's why the system is so messed up, that's why politicians no longer serve the people, you could still make the argument about entitlements but the same rings true of taxation, lowering taxes is not always a good thing, there is a balance that has to be struck between government and private businesses and the fact of the matter is, is dangling tax breaks out there even though they will actually hurt the economy in some cases is worse than giving people that are down and out some form of assistance as it stabilizes society.

This mentality has corrupted our political system from the inside out, from top to bottom.

Compared to unlimited money from billionaires and private businesses, laughable claim :roll:

I hold the VOTERS accountable in the end, as they are the source of all power in our Government, by the Constitution.

It's not totally the voters fault (although the Trump voter has clearly shown there are millions of pretty whacky voters in the US) with blatant anti-democratic processes like gerrymandering, the electoral college and the unchecked money in government from billionaires and corporations that keep America a strictly two party system, strangling true voter ambition and reflection of where Americans actually stand.

Now, if you wish to discuss that, I am more then willing too.

We'll see if your capable of discussing what I have just wrote.

If you wish to insult me further, well... I leave that to the proper parties to correct.

If you are insulted by your own lack of creativity in terms of arguments that are bound to reply to this post, I feel sorry for you.
 
i'll add one : all districts are drawn by a computer using only census-generated population density data. districts are automatically redrawn once every ten years. this would effectively end gerrymandering.
 
No I insulted your lack of understanding on many topics.
So you admit to insulting me. Thank you.


You agree the system is broken, but as is about to become painfully obvious, you just don't understand why.
I'm sure you'll have a differing reason, one that has to do with the terribleness of anything right of center and virtue of things left of center. You are a broken record.

No, I already knew what you meant by entitlements, there was no need to expand, your singular train of thought on the topic has always been painfully ignorant.
So you admit you created your own argument for what I believe and that you believe you have the response for it because your ASSUMPTION of what I meant. JBM, Mr. Strawman would like to know when you're done with him.
That's simply catchphrase nonsense.
I will disagree.

America is not in the predicament it is in, because poor people get some money and assistance from the government, that is an absurd notion.
You're right it is, I didn't make that argument, you are and assigning it to me to castigate this created belief of yours of what I mean, so you can feel like you are right and just! There is a term for what you're doing ya know.

America is in the predicament it is in, in large part due to an unchecked and predatory form of capitalism, coupled with practically legalizing corruption through Citizens United has lead politicians on both sides to be totally and completely beholden to large corporate interests.
OH LOOK! I was right, please see above, I am reading your responses one line at time. It's quite predictable that you'd go there.
That's why the system is so messed up, that's why politicians no longer serve the people, you could still make the argument about entitlements but the same rings true of taxation, lowering taxes is not always a good thing, there is a balance that has to be struck between government and private businesses and the fact of the matter is, is dangling tax breaks out there even though they will actually hurt the economy in some cases is worse than giving people that are down and out some form of assistance as it stabilizes society.
That's lovely, was there a point you were going for in that rant?

Compared to unlimited money from billionaires and private businesses, laughable claim :roll:
Ahh yes, the "Evil rich". Blame them. Of course. Who would have seen you going there?
It's not totally the voters fault (although the Trump voter has clearly shown there are millions of pretty whacky voters in the US) with blatant anti-democratic processes like gerrymandering, the electoral college and the unchecked money in government from billionaires and corporations that keep America a strictly two party system, strangling true voter ambition and reflection of where Americans actually stand.
Did you get your talking points from "Feelthebern.com"?
 
We'll see if your capable of discussing what I have just wrote.
It was boilerplate left wing claptrap of demonizing the rich, blaming "Citizens untied" is quite partisan and ignores the reality of the ruling. I bring you the words of one who brought the suit. CU was about freedom of speech, and the power of the Government to curtail it. CU is all about political power and speech, who get's to control it. The pro-CU side is for Free Speech, the anti-CU side is about controlling speech they don't approve of.
Our case focused narrowly on making “Hillary: The Movie” available as video-on-demand. But the justices rightly looked at the bigger picture.


If federal election laws could be used to prevent my nonprofit organization from advertising or distributing our movie, what was to prevent other forms of speech with corporate ties — books from publishing houses, DVDs from film studios — from being limited during an election cycle if they mentioned or favored a political candidate?


It's worth remembering that during the first round of oral arguments, Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart asserted that McCain-Feingold's limitations “could have been applied to additional media as well.” Under that kind of broad interpretation of the law, Michael Bay's “13 Hours” about the debacle in Benghazi, Libya, or Johnny Depp's “Funny or Die Presents Donald Trump's The Art of the Deal: The Movie” also could have been challenged for violating corporate political spending during an election season.


Simply put, since the Citizens United decision there is more free speech in America — and, importantly, no evidence that corporations have been able to buy an election. In fact, the candidates with the biggest super-PAC war chests have often lost. Jeb Bush, who spent more than $100 million before dropping out of the Republican primary on Feb. 20, is just the most recent example.
I'm responsible for Citizens United. I'm not sorry. - LA Times


If you are insulted by your own lack of creativity in terms of arguments that are bound to reply to this post, I feel sorry for you.
I see this must go that way then, well I certainly didn't wish to go there, but you forced my hand.
 
Professional politicians and billion dollar election campaigns are indeed a problem. The problem, even. But it seems like an inevitable consequence of representative democracy. As long as acquiring enough votes secures an office wielding enormous power, such as the presidency, there are going to be people and organizations dedicating resources to suck up those votes for self-interested reasons. I don't see a way to tamp that down. Not without some really extreme measures anyway.

I still agree that democracy is the least worst of the options but lately some kind of meritocracy is beginning to look appealing. I like your idea about the military service req. Some kind of selfless-ness filter. Maybe once they leave office all former presidents should be required by law to live an extremely austere lifestyle, owning no property, and spending the rest of their days doing menial charity work, eating bland foods and wearing nothing but a burlap sack - i'm picturing the high sparrow. That would keep away the Donald Trump types.


319



Then again maybe I've been watching too much game of thrones....:mrgreen:
 
i can agree with most of this, but when you start laying the blame on the media (which is **** i agree), to me it's excusing the uninformed voters who never bothered to learn basic concepts like *weighing the evidence*

you know that theory that people get the government they deserve? I think instead of trusting politicians to pass laws that undermine their own ineptitude and indifference (such as reading laws before voting on them), you got to start from the ground up - the people who continue voting for incumbents at 90%+
 
I'm sure you'll have a differing reason, one that has to do with the terribleness of anything right of center and virtue of things left of center. You are a broken record.

A broken record sure, but your warped view of left and right is irrelevant, I'm a broken record but I am correct.


So you admit you created your own argument

I did no such thing, you think entitlements and giving the poor assistance is whats sucking the life out of the country, you're running from your own words, you provided no other reason and stuck to that.

It's pretty rich, you accusing me of "creating my own argument when you went and said this:

Ahh yes, the "Evil rich". Blame them.

This is a painfully dishonest portrayal of what I mean, the anarchistic notion that unlimited money in politics is not an issue, is painfully ignorant and again, underlines your total and complete lack of understanding of why America is in the predicament it is in.

But I believe in an equitable society, not totally equal, not some socialist paradise, but in terms of healthcare for example, it has proven to work far better than your exploitative system of healthcare that bankrupts families left right and centre and leaves citizens destitute and fuels social issues.

It is not a handout, we do pay for it as taxpayers, but it is a better system overall, not perfect but better.

You're right it is, I didn't make that argument, you are and assigning it to me to castigate this created belief of yours of what I mean,

I know what you mean, and as always, when challenged on these points you run away from your own beliefs very quickly.

Because you lack complete and total understanding of exactly what your policies would do to people and families, you have an only abstract and theoretical understanding of the beliefs you espouse in terms of social welfare and taxation.

That's lovely, was there a point you were going for in that rant?

What was the point of anything you posted, you gace one line rebuttals without any substance whatsoever, because as I was proved right, you don't actually understand these things enough to argue them.

Did you get your talking points from "Feelthebern.com"?

:roll:
 
It was boilerplate left wing claptrap of demonizing the rich, blaming "Citizens untied" is quite partisan and ignores the reality of the ruling. I bring you the words of one who brought the suit. CU was about freedom of speech, and the power of the Government to curtail it. CU is all about political power and speech, who get's to control it. The pro-CU side is for Free Speech, the anti-CU side is about controlling speech they don't approve of.

Whatever philosophical bull**** arguments you want to make about "Money=Speech" is irrelevant.

On principal you can stand by that anarchistic nonsense and agree with it all you want.

But in practice, it is extremely destructive and undermines the democratic process from municipal all the way to federal and it has and will continue to cause a lot of damage.
 
1. Our government is filled brim-full with self-serving highly corrupt politicians of both parties. Those statesmen who truly want the best for the nation as a whole are a small minority.

Yes, liberalism destroys.


2. The two parties have a stranglehold on elections... few candidates reach the level of running for national office without being corrupted, and achieving national office without the endorsement of one party or the other is nearly impossible.

Leftists and RINOs are essentially the same thing. RINOs have been corrupted by liberalism, that’s why it needs to be defeated.


3. Entrenched bureaucracies and special interests control more and more of our lives, stealing power that was supposed to go to elected officials theoretically accountable to the voters.

See #1 and #2.


4. Apathy, ignorance and indifference among the populace has lead to less than half of eligible citizens actually voting in a given election. Given that we are so often faced with a choice between the lesser of two evils (two corrupt candidates from the major parties), it is hard to blame them, but it is an abrogation of the citizen's right and duty to participate in self-governance by the principles of our nation.

There are occasions where the “lessor of two evils” is a good thing on its way to a better thing. Think about that, and be honest with yourself.


5. With a combination of biased partisanship and indifference to accuracy, the media cannot be trusted by the voting public.

The media can’t be trusted because the dominate media culture is way, way to the left.



In short, we're fracked. Frankly, we need to throw the existing system out and start over.

I don’t think so. Our system is corrupted by liberalism, which essentially is a cancerous tumor slowly destroying the country. Defeated liberalism and we defeated 99% of the political problems my country faces.

This is of course unlikely barring some kind of utterly disastrous crisis of national proportions far beyond anything we've seen in the past half century... but we might be heading that way if we continue as we are.

Keep your powder dry.

So what should we build in its place? A unified government with one law for all, or a loose federation of internally autonomous regions?

It doesn’t need replacing. It needs to be returned to its original state.

Either way, I think there are some principles we need to build the new system upon:

There’s only one principle, and one system, The Constitution of The United States of America.
 
Yes, liberalism destroys.




Leftists and RINOs are essentially the same thing. RINOs have been corrupted by liberalism, that’s why it needs to be defeated.




See #1 and #2.




There are occasions where the “lessor of two evils” is a good thing on its way to a better thing. Think about that, and be honest with yourself.




The media can’t be trusted because the dominate media culture is way, way to the left.





I don’t think so. Our system is corrupted by liberalism, which essentially is a cancerous tumor slowly destroying the country. Defeated liberalism and we defeated 99% of the political problems my country faces.



Keep your powder dry.



It doesn’t need replacing. It needs to be returned to its original state.



There’s only one principle, and one system, The Constitution of The United States of America.

So only liberals are capable of being corrupt? Conservatives are incorruptibly and always do what is right for the nation?
 
So only liberals are capable of being corrupt? Conservatives are incorruptibly and always do what is right for the nation?

Of course: If they don't, they're not True Conservatives. Duh.
 
Either way, I think there are some principles we need to build the new system upon:

1. Professional politicians invariably result in a corrupted government. Simply put, when politics becomes a lifelong profession, the temptation to corruption becomes almost irresistible, and politicians cease to be "of the people" and become instead "the ruling class"... and as we've seen, they put themselves above the law.
So we don't want professional politicians... term limits are a start but we need to go beyond that. Power tends to corrupt; people who SEEK power tend to BE corrupt.

How about: Abolish the party system (no official acknowledgement or endorsement of Rs and Ds); computerize district boundary divisions with regular redistributions, as Helix noted; cap politicians' pay at say double the median national income for President, working downwards, and eliminate politicians' pensions; and do something about campaign finance.

Political parties and stable (and especially gerrymandered) political divisions both encourage undue confidence for many incumbents to retain their seats. Just fixing those two would drastically reduce the professional politician element. Getting the money out of politics, both the personal gain and bribery campaign donation elements, should do most of the rest (and reduced political salaries might make actual bribery easier to spot). Your suggestions might well be better than the current status quo, but they A) pretty much guarantee that you won't get the best choice of candidates from the random selection and B) do guarantee that even the best leaders can't serve for long! Mediocrity might be better than corruption, but wouldn't it be better to try some less drastic (and less freedom-curtailing) measures first?

2. All campaigns funded from the public treasury in equal measure, no contributions (private or corporate) allowed.

Personally I'd say allow donations, but only from private citizens and only up to an amount that a keen supporter of average means might be able to contribute (say one month's median pay), with all donations more than one tenth that amount open to public record. No public contribution to campaigns for discretionary spending, but designated events like web-space, debates and TV spots featuring the top five candidates could work.

The big issue here is biased coverage and editorials/opinion pieces, which can essentially amount to campaigning on candidates' behalf. But as far as I can imagine that's virtually impossible to circumvent without punitive restrictions which would essentially be anti-democratic in themselves.

3. Retain the Bill of Rights, but reworded in modern legal English leaving no question as to meaning, which is to be construed in favor of individual rights.

lol Americans :2wave:

Seriously though, that's an entirely different issue to electoral reform. Why not leave it to the new, improved government to consider? This kind of violates your own point #5:

5. No bill may pass without first being read. No rider may attach that isn't directly relevant to the bill's original purpose.

Also a 20-year sunset clause/renewal vote on all legislation? (Someone else already mentioned.)



Very thought-provoking thread!
 
Last edited:
Sounds like a fine principle except Congress can't possibly be arsed to come up with a vote for every single thing an executive agency wants to do. Not to mention being mostly unqualified to make decisions about fields they know nothing about. Oh, but your plan is different: only the wealthy and well-educated are allowed to be elected. So different than what we have today! :roll:



Strawman, or else you didn't actually read it.
 
Professional politicians and billion dollar election campaigns are indeed a problem. The problem, even. But it seems like an inevitable consequence of representative democracy. As long as acquiring enough votes secures an office wielding enormous power, such as the presidency, there are going to be people and organizations dedicating resources to suck up those votes for self-interested reasons. I don't see a way to tamp that down. Not without some really extreme measures anyway.

I still agree that democracy is the least worst of the options but lately some kind of meritocracy is beginning to look appealing. I like your idea about the military service req. Some kind of selfless-ness filter. Maybe once they leave office all former presidents should be required by law to live an extremely austere lifestyle, owning no property, and spending the rest of their days doing menial charity work, eating bland foods and wearing nothing but a burlap sack - i'm picturing the high sparrow. That would keep away the Donald Trump types.


319



Then again maybe I've been watching too much game of thrones....:mrgreen:
Landowners were initially the only group allowed to vote.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 
Landowners were initially the only group allowed to vote.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

And women and blacks weren't. Good thing we've moved past all that, huh?
 
And women and blacks weren't. Good thing we've moved past all that, huh?
What did I say about race or gender?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk
 
well since we're kind of fantasizing about turning to people we blame for our problems as our saviors (i.e. legislation), i favor a "no confidence" law:

"a nationwide ballot proposal is conducted every 2 years, in which the voters may 'approve' or 'disapprove' of the collective bodies of the US senate and house of reps. If the tally for 'approve' does not reach 70% nationwide, the entire senate/house are removed from office and new elections to take place"

this would instantly solve the serious problem of ****head incumbents winning over and over, and force the government to work together regardless of parties. In fact, it may even accomplish the destruction of both parties

but since these same villains will never pass such a law, as they care far more for their own power than the country, i favor instead the creation of a "No Incumbents Party" with the following platform:

"our candidates may only serve a single term in office in the legislative or executive branch, at state or national level"

without 'election season' to worry about, the candidates once in office will focus on actually doing their job, and you won't have senile dinosaurs like mccain and thurmond around for half a century
 
Back
Top Bottom