View Poll Results: Why do you still support our system of government?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • Iím one of the 15% - 20% who think it is working properly.

    3 6.82%
  • Iím one of the 15% - 20% but think any problems can easily be fixed.

    2 4.55%
  • Iím among the 15% - 20% but think itís not the system itís the party running it.

    1 2.27%
  • Iím among the 80% - 85% but think itís not the system but the people running it.

    17 38.64%
  • Iím among the 80% - 85% but donít think there is anything we can do about it.

    3 6.82%
  • Iím among the 80% - 85% but donít think thereís enough support to reinvent it.

    7 15.91%
  • Iím among the 80% - 85% and am willing to act, just waiting for the right time.

    8 18.18%
  • Iím among the 80% - 85% but just donít give a crap.

    0 0%
  • Iím not American, and not that concernd about your mess.

    3 6.82%
Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 186

Thread: Why do you still support our system of government?

  1. #61
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,551

    Re: Why do you still support our system of government?

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    This. I support our form of government, because I've not heard anything better proposed.

    That certainly doesn't mean we don't have problems, but I don't see them as being nearly as severe as some others do, and I think they're fixable, if people only cared enough.
    The problem is that new candidates have extreme difficulty in unseating any incumbents, the higher the level of gov't then the harder (and more expensive) it gets to attempt to do so. I look at out system of gov't as one that now requires that an applicant (candidate) spend 100x (or more) than they will earn in office, to simply apply for that job.

    The U.S. constitution lists (enumerates) only 18 federal gov't powers, yet many more are acquired as we now seem to want to federalize everything. Education is not a constitutional federal power yet is now the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal department. Our income redistribution, or social "safety net", programs now account for about one third of all federal spending - it seems that "General Welfare" commands a great army of voters, that will constantly keep "him", and his advocates, in power.
    ďThe reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.Ē ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  2. #62
    Sage
    German guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 06:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,187

    Re: Why do you still support our system of government?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    People seem to have a lot of faith in Polls and Statistics. Recently, several polls have indicated somewhere between 15% and 20% of the American people still have faith in the workings of our government. If so, why do you think we still support it?

    I have almost no faith in the workings of our Federal government, and what little there is resides solely within the Federal Court system which seems to be, despite claims otherwise, the last bulwark protecting our individual liberties.

    Both houses of Congress are simply whores for banking and corporate interests, and give lip service to the needs of citizens.

    The Chief Executive and his cabinet are puppets, acting out roles to make themselves seem important. The upper-level management of the various agencies under their control are cronies and political hacks of whichever party got them appointed, and work to undermine whichever opposing party holds the executive office. Lower management are simply drones, doing as little as possible in order to keep their positions and move up the civil service ladder.

    Only the Judicial branch allows some action independent of special interests. Not in all cases of course, political appointments have some sway, but in the main each Judge is trying to balance the scales of justice honestly.

    The moment I lose faith in this last small group is the moment I become fully radicalized.

    Until then, Iím still willing to work within the system and hope for the best.
    I voted #10: I'm not American and not terribly concerned. So far, America has given a good example, and although there often are problems and some things go wrong, America has always found a way to fix it so far.

    Not sure if you're interested, but from an outside perspective, I'd propose a few very thorough reforms to make a generally very good system work again:

    - very strict anti-corruption and anti-lobbyism laws that prohibits "donations" and "sideline jobs" for elected representatives and other offices
    - abandoning private donations to political parties and instead provide them with public money in a size tied to their number of votes in the previous election
    - SC judges shall no longer be appointed by the respective President, but elected by a two/third majority of House and/or Congress (limiting partisanship of judges; professional expertize should count and respect for what the Constitution actually says)
    - breaking up the two-party monopoly on politics by abandoning the majority-system in favor of proportional representation (a party that wins X% of the votes gets X% of the seats) and, i.e., a two-round election for Presidentials (all candidates from the primaries and third parties run in the first turn, and when none reaches 50% of the votes, there is a run-off between the two best from round one)

    These changes would be thorough, yet maintain the spirit and general idea of the republican system "of the people, by the people", checks and balances and Constitution, which are all very good ideas, IMO.

    My two cents.
    "Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."

  3. #63
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Why do you still support our system of government?

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    People seem to have a lot of faith in Polls and Statistics. Recently, several polls have indicated somewhere between 15% and 20% of the American people still have faith in the workings of our government. If so, why do you think we still support it?

    I have almost no faith in the workings of our Federal government, and what little there is resides solely within the Federal Court system which seems to be, despite claims otherwise, the last bulwark protecting our individual liberties.

    Both houses of Congress are simply whores for banking and corporate interests, and give lip service to the needs of citizens.

    The Chief Executive and his cabinet are puppets, acting out roles to make themselves seem important. The upper-level management of the various agencies under their control are cronies and political hacks of whichever party got them appointed, and work to undermine whichever opposing party holds the executive office. Lower management are simply drones, doing as little as possible in order to keep their positions and move up the civil service ladder.

    Only the Judicial branch allows some action independent of special interests. Not in all cases of course, political appointments have some sway, but in the main each Judge is trying to balance the scales of justice honestly.

    The moment I lose faith in this last small group is the moment I become fully radicalized.

    Until then, Iím still willing to work within the system and hope for the best.
    It is not the system that is broken. It is the people inside it that are broken.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  4. #64
    Sage
    German guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Last Seen
    08-24-17 @ 06:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    5,187

    Re: Why do you still support our system of government?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    It is not the system that is broken. It is the people inside it that are broken.
    A good system should take into account that the people inside it are broken and limit the damage they can inflict.

    If we had unbroken people available, we could just name one of them absolutist king.
    "Not learning from mistakes is worse than committing mistakes. When you don't allow yourself to make mistakes, it is hard to be tolerant of others and it does not allow even God to be merciful."

  5. #65
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,322

    Re: Why do you still support our system of government?

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    - very strict anti-corruption and anti-lobbyism laws that prohibits "donations" and "sideline jobs" for elected representatives and other offices
    The new Kenyan constitution (2011) stipulates that representatives in congress (there, parliament) cannot have ANY businesss or professional affairs outside the responsibilities of their office. Wealthy representatives, with extensive side business action, are fleeing parliament and such is ushering in a new generation of politicians.

    - abandoning private donations to political parties and instead provide them with public money in a size tied to their number of votes in the previous election
    I'm not sure I agree. A good looking, well educated and well spoken man can generate political power with words. Some can generate political power merely by the position of their birth. It should be possible for a simple hard-working man to generate political power according to his talent and effort. Much as in the case of the free-market, money is speech. Economic freedom is an important aspect of liberation.

    - SC judges shall no longer be appointed by the respective President, but elected by a two/third majority of House and/or Congress (limiting partisanship of judges; professional expertize should count and respect for what the Constitution actually says)
    Congress already must approve the selection, taking into account those things that you feel are neglected.

    - breaking up the two-party monopoly on politics by abandoning the majority-system in favor of proportional representation (a party that wins X% of the votes gets X% of the seats) and, i.e., a two-round election for Presidentials (all candidates from the primaries and third parties run in the first turn, and when none reaches 50% of the votes, there is a run-off between the two best from round one)
    While I understand the benefits of a proportional system, do you recognize the benefits of a two-party system? It brings the fringes into the mainstream and helps to prevent the exclusion of any perspective. Additionally, third parties have determined the outcome of elections - Perot cost the republicans and Nader cost the democrats. In each case, we see a major shift in the affected party to include those voters who cost them the election. Of course, if a third party can get 5% of the popular vote, then they are allotted time and money in becoming a viable alternative. We might note that those third parties mentioned managed to decide the vote without attaining 5% in the general.

    I think that having one or two members in congress who are members of the Green party is not nearly as effective as costing the democrats the election and forcing a major shift in democrat policy and focus. More change is affected in the later event. Compared to what Nader did to the Democrats (and Gore personally), a couple Greens in congress is nothing. A third party that did not even get 5% affected massive changes within a major party and sent Gore off the ledge personally - two Greenies in congress could never do that.

    Lastly, let's note that a fringe party member of congress is really nothing more than a one-issue voter at the federal level. While I don't have anything against one-issue voters, I'm not sure people want such in congress.


    So, before we declare the superiority of proportional representation, let's consider the positive impacts and opportunities presented by the two-party system.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 07-13-13 at 12:17 PM.

  6. #66
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,857
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Why do you still support our system of government?

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    A good system should take into account that the people inside it are broken and limit the damage they can inflict.

    If we had unbroken people available, we could just name one of them absolutist king.
    No system, no matter what that system is or how good it is can take into account every single thing. I have a saying...."What one person builds, another can tear down". Why do I have that saying? Because its true. There is nothing that mankind has ever built which another has not torn down at some point or another. Sometimes they do it in the flash of a bomb. Other times they do it over decades. Just depends on what it is. But in the end everything is torn down. I believe that the Founders knew this and that is why they put in 7 checks on our government. Leaving 4 of the checks against the government up to the People. Unfortenately what they didn't count on is that the People would not be as honorable as they were. (and no, that is not saying that the Founders were perfect or were completely honorable...they weren't. But they had a lot more honor than many people today do.)
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  7. #67
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,542
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Why do you still support our system of government?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I still support it even though I don't like where it is. It's not the people running the government or the foundation of the system that's wrong. The problem is with potential American voters. If we took more interest, then we could change things but most have succumbed to apathy. They simply can't "waste their time" on politics or political issues; Their lives are too hectic and complex as it is. Maybe some day we will collectively recognize this and take back our responsibilities as American adults.
    But voting really has very little impact, since whatever we vote on has already been determined by those in power. For example, the further we get from local government the fewer candidates we actually have input in the pre-selection process. Instead, we are bound to select from those candidates who are presented to us by the two major political parties. Doesn't this mean we are merely shifting between the options of either major party when we vote? How does that change anything?

    Even in states where people can propose popular referedums, special interests can simply flood the ballots with options cleverly worded to sound positive, but actually run counter to what people really want. You'd need to be a wordsmith to fugre them out. Soooo, what exactly do you mean by taking more interest?
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  8. #68
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,542
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Why do you still support our system of government?

    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    I really believe people in western civilization really don't know how good they actually have it. It's as though we have no perspective outside of idealism. The concept of perfection is ruining everybody's appreciation for reality.
    Perhaps. But "good" in this case is a relative term. For example, (having resided in some third world nations myself) if you live in a hovel but you have a roof over your head; don't get steak and potatoes but still have food to eat, and cant get a lot of "luxuries" but don't really know about them yet do have some pleasant local things to enjoy, you might be quite content. However, if you live in a society where "goods and services" seem plentiful but completely unaffordable and out of your reach, you can be quite discontented.

    This is exacerbated when those who control media use advertising to indoctrinate you into thinking "wants" are really "needs," so consume, consume, consume.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  9. #69
    Renaissance Man
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    8,542
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Why do you still support our system of government?

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    I voted #10: I'm not American and not terribly concerned. So far, America has given a good example, and although there often are problems and some things go wrong, America has always found a way to fix it so far.

    Not sure if you're interested, but from an outside perspective, I'd propose a few very thorough reforms to make a generally very good system work again:
    Thanks for your input. Yes I am interested in an "outsiders" perspective. Let's look at your suggestions....

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    - very strict anti-corruption and anti-lobbyism laws that prohibits "donations" and "sideline jobs" for elected representatives and other offices
    - abandoning private donations to political parties and instead provide them with public money in a size tied to their number of votes in the previous election.
    Many Americans agree with these proposals and have tried over and over again to get them enacted. The problem is that in our system, the people who have the power to do this are the very people (Senators and Representatives in Congress) who benefit from NOT passing this kind of legislation.

    We, as a society, would have to try to push through a Constitutional Amendment by-passing Congress for the first item, then try to get people elected who could pass the second item. Since the wealthy would spend their money helping elect those who would keep taking their money while in office, that's a tough nut to crack.

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    - SC judges shall no longer be appointed by the respective President, but elected by a two/third majority of House and/or Congress (limiting partisanship of judges; professional expertize should count and respect for what the Constitution actually says).
    A more divided issue among American voters, since many of us like the current method of SC selection, and many do not. Even were enough people supportive, it would also require a Constitutional Amendment and a real 2/3 majority in American for support. But objections would concern giving Congress so much power; and issues arise about who makes the initial selections, and how long could opponents of selections drag the process out?

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    - breaking up the two-party monopoly on politics by abandoning the majority-system in favor of proportional representation (a party that wins X% of the votes gets X% of the seats) and, i.e., a two-round election for Presidentials (all candidates from the primaries and third parties run in the first turn, and when none reaches 50% of the votes, there is a run-off between the two best from round one).
    I personally dislike the two-party system but this would also require a combination of Constitutional Amendments at both the State and Federal levels. It would also take a radical paradigm shift in American thinking, which has been molded into a two-party methodology almost from the inception of our society. There have been "hiccups" like: Progressive, Reform, Farm-Labor, Populist and Prohibition. But each was primarily a one-issue voter group which dissolved once the issue of the time was addressed. We do have many smaller parties, but only three where each have currently 75,000 or more registered voters: Libertarian, Greens, and the Constitution Party. Perhaps if we had organized along regional parliamentary lines instead of our current Federal system, multi-parties would have a better chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by German guy View Post
    These changes would be thorough, yet maintain the spirit and general idea of the republican system "of the people, by the people", checks and balances and Constitution, which are all very good ideas, IMO.
    True. But they would also require a radical reorganization of our system of government. That would take either a national push for a constitutional convention, or a radical revolution. Americans might fear a convention would be shanghaied by money interests, and we are not radicalized enough as of yet for outright revolution.

    However, your points were well-taken, and worthy of consideration. Thank you.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 07-13-13 at 02:32 PM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  10. #70
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Why do you still support our system of government?

    Pasch loves walls of text!! Part 1 of 2

    I very much like representative democracy and separation of powers. They are a good way to keep power from concentrating in too few hands. It's capitalism that's the problem. It's the money in politics. It's that our representatives and our elections are for sale. The system of government is pretty good, though certainly not perfect. Allowing it to be sold to the highest bidder is what is destroying it. The closest poll choice I will do is the "Iím among the 80% - 85% but think itís not the system but the people running it." choice, but it's not really the people running it that I object to. It's the people who own it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Northern Light View Post
    The root of all our problems right now is neoliberalism and a privatized financial system.

    As it stands, the largesse of private business is overtaking our government and all of the public assets we hold dear. Our nation's infrastructure is falling apart, we have upwards of 15% realistic unemployment (perhaps more), and more than 25% of the population is having to turn to the government tit. All the while, the private sector continues to rake in obscene profits that are not being redistributed through trickle down.

    De-privatize the Federal Reserve and give the power of the financial system back to the People, and our government may be able to restore its democratic functions.

    That said, IMO it is far too late. The wealthy are currently building their fortresses and deepening their moats because the writing's on the wall for what's about to happen. With our global empire being artificially kept afloat with fiat money, the government is functioning in name only. Realistically, our economy collapsed in 2008. People should be under no illusions about long term solvency. The ship is being kept afloat so that those with the means can build their shelters. The rest of us are SOL, mostly because Americans are too stupid to have spent the past 15 years doing anything but engaging in pointless partisan bickering. We have been fighting each other instead of our government.
    I don't know what "neoliberalism" is or what it has to do with your comment, but the rest of it is spot on. We sold our republic to aristocrats. That's what this country is becoming. A new aristocracy, ruled by the money and power of a super wealthy class. They have enormous private power that the public cannot check.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Well, we could try re-organizing into a system with a Federal government of severely limited powers, uniting States for purposes of defense and international commerce but no more. I think that was the "original plan" which got shanghied by radical Federalists.
    No, that was a terrible plan. State governments are even more prone to corruption than the federal one, and have more power allotted to them to abuse. And in this history of this nation, it is has been state governments that have trampled on the rights of the people, and the federal government that has had to prevent this. Empowering the states and weakening the federal will solve exactly zero problems and exacerbate a whole lot.

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    If that didn't work the first time around, why would it work a second time? Face the facts, most people don't want the very weak, limited federal government which was originally outlined in the constitution.
    That was not in the constitution. That was the Articles of Confederation, which was awful. The federal government we have now is the same one we had 200 years ago. The biggest difference that makes people think it is different is because technology has altered commerce to the point where nearly all commerce is interstate, and thus subject to federal regulation, rather than just state regulation. Also, now there is a lot more travel between states, and more call for uniform law between them. At the same time, regulation to deal with those bigger commercial entities requires bigger rules. The government didn't change. Commerce did.

    Quote Originally Posted by douglas View Post
    I feel that almost all problems with the government stem from special interest groups, corruption/bribery, and economy games. I'm for a project venus type solution. Not just America, but the entire world economy needs to have a complete reboot. Money just doesn't mean anything, it's printed on demand. Even the gold standard only worked because it was scarce, but that can be attacked in the same way that De Beers cornered the diamond market. Ultimately, the economy needs to be automated and socialized. That is a BIG issue between me and most libertarians; where they think a free market is the path to liberty, history has shown it to always be the path to slavery. All previous forms of communism and full socialism have failed due to the way the system was corrupted by the ruling class. If we could all accept a standardized/automated system of wealth distribution and completely separate "working" from obtaining wealth, all work would be voluntary. There is a level of automation where all distribution and utility architecture could be maintained by volunteers. For those that don't believe a society can run on volunteers, ask yourself why police do their job? Do you really think they do it for the money? There are people who WANT to help society, like activist groups. If we ran the government through volunteers and completely removed the ability to gain wealth or power, all the problems of our modern government/economy would be solved; there'd be no more special interest groups, no more corruption, no more ability to influence wealth distribution. It's been known for a long time now that intrinsic rewards are stronger than extrinsic rewards; people work harder and are more innovative when money is completely off the table. So, I'm just biding my time for the moment of our economic collapse and then help build up a society based on volunteerism.
    Very inspiring. This county has always demonstrated that people care about community. The only thing that tends to stop them is when they're afraid of it. But the vast majority of people in this nation want to help, and care about helping. A system where we were not fighting to survive and clawing up a financial ladder would work fine. We do not need to fight over owning things, and place so much value on hoarding wealth and denying things to other people. There is more than enough to go around for everyone to be comfortable. Maintaining a wasteful upper class is draining this country dry and for absolutely no return to the rest of us. Also, great avatar.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lakryte View Post
    Privatized financial system? Are you joking? The financial sector of the United States economy is the least free market of any other sector. It is founded upon fraudulent fractional reserve banking and subsidized the by the Federal Reserve, a government created bank that epitomizes corporatism.

    The Federal Reserve has monopoly on the creation of money, manipulates interest rates, and can create money to give to its friends. The chairman of the Federal Reserve is appointed by the President, so to call it private is nonsense. Is is independent of Congressional oversight? Sure. But it is not arm of the free market.

    The Fed needs to be gotten rid of, and banking needs a huge overhaul.
    You do know that the Fed is a privately owned company right? All of that money printing and manipulation of interest is done for the profit of its owners. It is a corporation that owns the government, not the other way around.
    Libertť. …galitť. Fraternitť.

Page 7 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •