• 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!

The most important branch of govt: Popular power.

Starvos

Starvos

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2018
Messages
78
Reaction score
17
Location
Alaska, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As in stands in the United States, the people have no political power on a national or even state level.
The wants and needs of the people are constantly cast aside in favor of pandering to lobbyists and corporate sponsorships.

We have freedom of speech, but we have no right for our speech to be heard.

Our "representatives" must adhere to a strict party line and often must get their funding from one special interest group or another, turning them effectively into bought and paid for shills.

To fix this, we must abolish the congress and the senate and replace it with a People's assembly with higher and lower organs, abolish lobbyist groups, special interest groups and make campaign donations illegal.

Lower the salaries of the representatives down to a level where they can identify with the majority of the people, and have these representatives be answerable to their constituent base.

This is obviously never going to happen in America, because the rich and powerful who run this country would never allow concessions to lessen their influence.

But this is just my way of partially fixing the problem of lack of political power for the masses, within a capitalist system that is.
 
Last edited:
The people have power...the power of the vote. But they have given up that power. They have no one to blame but themselves.
 
Starvos said:
As in stands in the United States, the people have no political power on a national or even state level.
The wants and needs of the people are constantly cast aside in favor of pandering to lobbyists and corporate sponsorships.

We have freedom of speech, but we have no right for our speech to be heard.

Our "representatives" must adhere to a strict party line and often must get their funding from one special interest group or another, turning them effectively into bought and paid for shills.

To fix this, we must abolish the congress and the senate and replace it with a People's assembly with higher and lower organs, abolish lobbyist groups, special interest groups and make campaign donations illegal.

Lower the salaries of the representatives down to a level where they can identify with the majority of the people, and have these representatives be answerable to their constituent base.

This is obviously never going to happen in America, because the rich and powerful who run this country would never allow concessions to lessen their influence.

But this is just my way of partially fixing the problem of lack of political power for the masses, within a capitalist system that is.
Click to expand...

1- Your right to free speech begins with the words, "Congress shall pass no laws..." You're right, you don't have the right to be heard, if that means the right to a stage and an audience.

2- If you lower the salaries of your legislators you'll not attract the best and the brightest, and the ones you do attract will be easier to tempt with bribes. I mean, look how it is now, and imagine how it would be if government paid a low level wage.
 
Starvos said:
As in stands in the United States, the people have no political power on a national or even state level.
The wants and needs of the people are constantly cast aside in favor of pandering to lobbyists and corporate sponsorships.

We have freedom of speech, but we have no right for our speech to be heard.

Our "representatives" must adhere to a strict party line and often must get their funding from one special interest group or another, turning them effectively into bought and paid for shills.

To fix this, we must abolish the congress and the senate and replace it with a People's assembly with higher and lower organs, abolish lobbyist groups, special interest groups and make campaign donations illegal.

Lower the salaries of the representatives down to a level where they can identify with the majority of the people, and have these representatives be answerable to their constituent base.

This is obviously never going to happen in America, because the rich and powerful who run this country would never allow concessions to lessen their influence.

But this is just my way of partially fixing the problem of lack of political power for the masses, within a capitalist system that is.
Click to expand...



I have found that you need to earn the right to be heard. The celebrated fathers of the nation weren't heard until they picked up their rifles and had at the British.

Nothing will happen if nothing changes, and nothing has changed in the 50+ years I have been paying attention. "They" won't consider change until they see that it will destroy them not to.

In the end it isn't because some weren't being heard, it's because too many have been too silent for too long. It was expedient at the time to not find Clinton guilty of obstruction of justice, however it told all that followed you can lie like hell, **** who you want, say what you like and still keep your job and pension. And they did, Bush gave us "mission accomplished" and Obama gave us "you can keep your plan....."

So no one should be surprised now with a nut bar who can't not lie even if he tries.

Re: politicians salaries....the argument is you only get what you pay for. The fix is a lot more difficult. The fix is to completely overhaul the lobbying and political donations, get rid of pacs or at least regulate the **** out of them like they do in Canada.

Your politicians never deal with the issues because there's no pay back for it. All they have to do is convince enough people that the other guy" is worse than you and you're in.
 
Mycroft said:
The people have power...the power of the vote. But they have given up that power. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Click to expand...

We're going from a democracy to an oligarchy, hm?
 
Mycroft said:
The people have power...the power of the vote. But they have given up that power. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Click to expand...

You describe an illusion. The ballot box is notoriously ineffective and meaningless. I'm no Trump fan, and I'm cynical as hell, but he was right--the system is rigged.
 
Thoreau72 said:
You describe an illusion. The ballot box is notoriously ineffective and meaningless. I'm no Trump fan, and I'm cynical as hell, but he was right--the system is rigged.
Click to expand...

It is not an illusion, it is the result of an ignorant electorate. Hell, more than half of the college graduates have no idea what the "Bill of Rights" are, if you don't know then you are more than willing to give them up.

Thomas Jefferson made a number of quotes in regard to and educated electorate, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Thomas Jefferson proposed an amendment to the Constitution in regard to education. "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree. . . . An amendment to our constitution must here come in aid of the public education. The influence over government must be shared among all people"

It is the people who have the power to change any corruption in our government through the ballot box, if they would just exercise that power. I believe that Madison said that the people are the bulwark of Liberty, and they need to exercise that power.
 
Terryj said:
It is not an illusion, it is the result of an ignorant electorate. Hell, more than half of the college graduates have no idea what the "Bill of Rights" are, if you don't know then you are more than willing to give them up.

Thomas Jefferson made a number of quotes in regard to and educated electorate, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Thomas Jefferson proposed an amendment to the Constitution in regard to education. "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. And to render even them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree. . . . An amendment to our constitution must here come in aid of the public education. The influence over government must be shared among all people"

It is the people who have the power to change any corruption in our government through the ballot box, if they would just exercise that power. I believe that Madison said that the people are the bulwark of Liberty, and they need to exercise that power.
Click to expand...

Madison noted, in a romantic moment, that the judiciary was the last bulwark of liberty. Seeing today's judiciary in action, I'm sure he is rolling in his grave.

I agree with you completely, and could add only that in defense of today's ordinary citizen, a very real explanation/rationalization of his ignorance is that several generations have been seriously and constantly indoctrinated. Yes, the masses have always been relatively uneducated, but we have been brainwashed for many decades.
 
Thinking back, maybe Madison claimed the judiciary was the last bulwark AGAINST tyranny.
 
300 million people are never going to live together without a strong central government. Hell, get 10 people on a deserted island and watch the ****show. We need order, law and some form of personal power to affect government. Our system does not scale. No other country has ever copied our constitution, none. Every single state is more democratic than our nation. We need to become a democracy not an oligarchy so in that respect I agree with your goal. But getting rid of the government is a recipe for revolution, it will be a bloodbath.
 
Vadinho said:
300 million people are never going to live together without a strong central government. Hell, get 10 people on a deserted island and watch the ****show. We need order, law and some form of personal power to affect government. Our system does not scale. No other country has ever copied our constitution, none. Every single state is more democratic than our nation. We need to become a democracy not an oligarchy so in that respect I agree with your goal. But getting rid of the government is a recipe for revolution, it will be a bloodbath.
Click to expand...

The Republic of Liberia copied the U.S. Constitution in the formation of their government.

We need to start acting more like a Republic instead of a democracy, the States need to start exercising their power over the Federal Government.
 
Terryj said:
The Republic of Liberia copied the U.S. Constitution in the formation of their government.

We need to start acting more like a Republic instead of a democracy, the States need to start exercising their power over the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

The states already have an inordinate amount of power. They just elected a minority POTUS, have control of the Senate and gerrymandered the House to the point where it is a shell of what it purports to be, the house of the people. I do not want my rights to be subject to some states politics or religion. Sorry but we will move towards greater federal control not less, it has been this way since the day after ratification.
 
Starvos said:
We have freedom of speech, but we have no right for our speech to be heard.
Click to expand...

This is a nonsensical claim.

You have a right to speak. And I have a right to ignore you. Nowhere in the right of free speech does it mandate that anybody has to listen to you.

This "right to be heard" is essentially that you are demanding that others have to listen under threat of force.

That is not how it works. That is not how any of it works.
 
Vadinho said:
The states already have an inordinate amount of power. They just elected a minority POTUS, have control of the Senate and gerrymandered the House to the point where it is a shell of what it purports to be, the house of the people. I do not want my rights to be subject to some states politics or religion. Sorry but we will move towards greater federal control not less, it has been this way since the day after ratification.
Click to expand...

This is what Madison had to say about the States function and the Federal Governments function:

The state governments, Madison argues, are closer to the people and can focus on the welfare of the people, regulating ordinary affairs such as the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, as well as the internal order of each state, and should have numerous undefined powers to do so, while the national government, being bigger and possessing national resources, can bring victory in war, protect the people’s liberty, and maintain peace between the states, and should have clear, few, defined powers to do so, mostly focusing on external objects such as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce and national taxation. He suggests that in times of peace, the state governments will tend to be larger and more powerful, while in times of crisis and war, the national government will expand as needed. Such a federal system will bring the government as a whole closer to the people than a purely national form of government would.

This is the way it should be.
 
Starvos said:
As in stands in the United States, the people have no political power on a national or even state level.
The wants and needs of the people are constantly cast aside in favor of pandering to lobbyists and corporate sponsorships.

We have freedom of speech, but we have no right for our speech to be heard.

Our "representatives" must adhere to a strict party line and often must get their funding from one special interest group or another, turning them effectively into bought and paid for shills.
Click to expand...
Funding for what ?? Election campaigns?? If so, then how do you propose to pay for eelction campaigns?? The idea of publicly funded campaigns is so stupid that not only does it deserve to be ignored, but actively ridiculed.


To fix this, we must abolish the congress and the senate and replace it with a People's assembly with higher and lower organs, abolish lobbyist groups, special interest groups and make campaign donations illegal.
Click to expand...
So how would these two bodies be chosen??

Lower the salaries of the representatives down to a level where they can identify with the majority of the people, and have these representatives be answerable to their constituent base.
Click to expand...

..and making it so that only those who can afford to step away from their careers could afford to be politicians.

This is obviously never going to happen in America, because the rich and powerful who run this country would never allow concessions to lessen their influence.
Click to expand...
Since according to popular belief the rich only account for 1% of America, the poor have a huge edge at the voting box.

But this is just my way of partially fixing the problem of lack of political power for the masses, within a capitalist system that is.
Click to expand...
No, this your way of parroting the same stupid ideas that ultra-left wing folks have been pushing for years. Lots of feel-good garbage, but little in the way of ideas that work in the real world.
 
Terryj said:
This is what Madison had to say about the States function and the Federal Governments function:

The state governments, Madison argues, are closer to the people and can focus on the welfare of the people, regulating ordinary affairs such as the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, as well as the internal order of each state, and should have numerous undefined powers to do so, while the national government, being bigger and possessing national resources, can bring victory in war, protect the people’s liberty, and maintain peace between the states, and should have clear, few, defined powers to do so, mostly focusing on external objects such as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce and national taxation. He suggests that in times of peace, the state governments will tend to be larger and more powerful, while in times of crisis and war, the national government will expand as needed. Such a federal system will bring the government as a whole closer to the people than a purely national form of government would.

This is the way it should be.
Click to expand...

Once again we hear someone trot out the thoughts of men dead over 200 years ago as if their thoughts were absolutes, timeless and applicable to every age. Madison was correct about the governments at the time and the government he wanted. So what? Governments today face problems he could never have imagined were even problems. Did Madison ever consider that dumping raw human sewage into a river by a state upstream of another state would become something bad or that needed to be stopped? No. They just used waterways as dumps, sewers and places to exploit. We grew out of it by creating a stronger federal government. Did he envision a nation of 330 million people spanning a continent including then Russia (Alaska) and Hawaii? Never in a million years. Did he consider a standing army to be necessary? No way in hell. I could go on and on and on here but what you are quoting is a passage from the past not advice for the present. We have made progress because we are one nation with a strong central government. That was decided in 1864 my friends. The nation Madison wanted almost destroyed itself in carnage and rage.
 
Vadinho said:
Once again we hear someone trot out the thoughts of men dead over 200 years ago as if their thoughts were absolutes, timeless and applicable to every age. Madison was correct about the governments at the time and the government he wanted. So what? Governments today face problems he could never have imagined were even problems. Did Madison ever consider that dumping raw human sewage into a river by a state upstream of another state would become something bad or that needed to be stopped? No. They just used waterways as dumps, sewers and places to exploit. We grew out of it by creating a stronger federal government. Did he envision a nation of 330 million people spanning a continent including then Russia (Alaska) and Hawaii? Never in a million years. Did he consider a standing army to be necessary? No way in hell. I could go on and on and on here but what you are quoting is a passage from the past not advice for the present. We have made progress because we are one nation with a strong central government. That was decided in 1864 my friends. The nation Madison wanted almost destroyed itself in carnage and rage.
Click to expand...

What Madison addressed is very relevant in today's world. Do you not think that each State is more in touch with their own affairs than a Federal Government trying to control each and every State with "blanket" policies that may or may not apply? Would you rather that we do away with State borders and just let the Federal Government control the country as it see fit? It seems that with our Federal Government today, we have replaced the Monarchy of King George III with the Monarchy of a Federal Government, States are not States anymore but Colonies of a Federal Government, this is what you are advocating for in your post. This is the very reason why the powers of the Federal Government are "few" and "defined". The States created the Federal Government through the Constitution, it was a compact that was ratified by the States and agreed to by the People. The Federal Government did not create itself, the People and the States existed before the Federal Government existed. We established this government to "form a more perfect Union" and governments are established among men to protect and secure our rights, not to dominate the People or the States. The hierarchy of government in this country runs as follows, the People, the States and then the Federal Government, this is something that has seems to be lost in this country today. The States are well equipped to deal with their issues, if the federal government would just leave them alone and tend to the job it was constructed to do.
 
Terryj said:
What Madison addressed is very relevant in today's world. Do you not think that each State is more in touch with their own affairs than a Federal Government trying to control each and every State with "blanket" policies that may or may not apply? Would you rather that we do away with State borders and just let the Federal Government control the country as it see fit? It seems that with our Federal Government today, we have replaced the Monarchy of King George III with the Monarchy of a Federal Government, States are not States anymore but Colonies of a Federal Government, this is what you are advocating for in your post. This is the very reason why the powers of the Federal Government are "few" and "defined". The States created the Federal Government through the Constitution, it was a compact that was ratified by the States and agreed to by the People. The Federal Government did not create itself, the People and the States existed before the Federal Government existed. We established this government to "form a more perfect Union" and governments are established among men to protect and secure our rights, not to dominate the People or the States. The hierarchy of government in this country runs as follows, the People, the States and then the Federal Government, this is something that has seems to be lost in this country today. The States are well equipped to deal with their issues, if the federal government would just leave them alone and tend to the job it was constructed to do.
Click to expand...

These words sound reasonable but lack specificity. What powers did the central government take on that should best be left to each individual state? I am curious if you have any depth to this opinion or if this is just a mantra spewed by states rights advocates hiding a more sinister agenda. Lets hear specifics and then we can debate if the power is best used by states or a central government.
 
Vadinho said:
These words sound reasonable but lack specificity. What powers did the central government take on that should best be left to each individual state? I am curious if you have any depth to this opinion or if this is just a mantra spewed by states rights advocates hiding a more sinister agenda. Lets hear specifics and then we can debate if the power is best used by states or a central government.
Click to expand...

The States should be responsible of the domestic affairs within their own borders, meeting the needs of their people, with or without the help the the Federal government, with no strings attached. The States should be able to manage their respective resources without interference from a federal government. In other words, the people of their respect States know the needs of their State, the people can make sure their State address the concerns of their State without Federal government interference. We do not need an EPA to tell people not to crap in their own beds, we do not need a Dept. of Education to tell each State how they need to run an education system, and the list goes on. There is nothing wrong with a State asking for Federal help, but it should come with no strings attached. Let the people manage their States and let the Federal government do the job it was created to do, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare of the Union and to secure our liberties and prosperity. Notice I stated the general welfare of the Union, let the States deal with the welfare of their people.
 
Terryj said:
The States should be responsible of the domestic affairs within their own borders, meeting the needs of their people, with or without the help the the Federal government, with no strings attached. The States should be able to manage their respective resources without interference from a federal government. In other words, the people of their respect States know the needs of their State, the people can make sure their State address the concerns of their State without Federal government interference. We do not need an EPA to tell people not to crap in their own beds, we do not need a Dept. of Education to tell each State how they need to run an education system, and the list goes on. There is nothing wrong with a State asking for Federal help, but it should come with no strings attached. Let the people manage their States and let the Federal government do the job it was created to do, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare of the Union and to secure our liberties and prosperity. Notice I stated the general welfare of the Union, let the States deal with the welfare of their people.
Click to expand...

First of all, the Dept of Education does not tell states how to run their educational systems. They merely put stipulations on them in order to get federal subsidies. Any state can refuse to take federal money at any time and teach kids Creationism, it is their choice. But if you want federal dollars, you must follow federal rules about how to use it. Secondly, your post about the EPA displays either ignorance or apathy towards the environment, the nation as a whole and the various animals and living things that live among us. The reason this agency was created lies in the history of resource exploitation, greed and carelessness that brought us the complete annihilation of almost every buffalo, every single passenger pigeon, every grizzly bear in most of the West, every wolf in most of the nation, countless fish species, polluted water, polluted air and so on. No state lies by itself on this planet, it is part of a complete ecosystem that spans the entire globe. You really only gave us two federal tasks instead of a long list of petty grievances supporting your position. The first is not based upon reality or reason. The second is naive and unaware of history. Try again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom