okay cool... yeah I mean I don't mean to generalize. I just sometimes don't understand how some people can be voted into office which is my main point.

 

Also I don't want to seem Anti-American or whatever too... but I just feel if you're going to go around being really patriotic and pompous, at least make it seem like you know what you're talking about... if that makes any sense, or doesn't seem like i'm generalizing too much. :P

I agree that I has to do with money. But at the same time I think it has to do with people being comfortable. I mean lets face it. If ideally all parties had equal spending for campaigns I still think that Republicans and Democrats would win, just because people probably wouldn't be so comfortable with supporting a party that has no record of leading. Though it's a conundrum, because those parties haven't had a chance to lead.

True, one of the greatest loves of the ancient Greeks was love of the familiar - and so it is, here in our republic modeled after Athens', Rome's, and Venice's. But even if voters stuck with the two major parties, if the supporters of each had equal pull within their parties, that could result in candidates who, when in office, would support broader legislation that works for the citizens as a whole, as opposed to the interest group or individual who pours the most money into the campaign.

If the campaign funds were equal, and the maximum amount per real citizen were no more than 1% of an average person's wages, I think the legislative efforts from either party's candidates would begin to reflect common sense policies and greater protection of our shared commons. And if one candidate has more supporters than the other, even if the other took the make-up money, those who feel they have an interest in one vs. the other, will be more energized to spread the message to the voters. But either way, the results would be better - a government of, by, and for We the People.

And if things didn't get better, then if some 3rd party candidate came along with a reform message (here I think back to La Follette, Anderson, Nader, Perot), the odds are that they would have a significant impact in the election outcomes, so that the better policies would have to be adopted by major party candidates, or the new party would gain more and more seats until they became a major party.

 

Inspired by the previous posts:

 

It says: "OF, BY and FOR the PEOPLE!"

 

@ OF the people: It seems to me that those elected do not represent the typical American voter: The candicates and in particular the candidate elected are/is typical (a) multi-millionaire(s) backed by donations from other multi-millionaires / major interest groups plus corporations.

 

 

@ By the people: Only around 50% of the Americans bother to vote - probably because so many feel that the candidates do not represent them so they are desillusioned thinking that it will not help them to vote. The policy conducted - whoever wins - will not improve their situation anyway, so why bother vote!

 

 

@ FOR the people: Having been supported by corporations and donations from multi-millionaires, the leading candidates and the candidate(s) elected for a high office feel that they have to give something back to the (major) donors - be it multi-millionaires, interest group(s) or corporations - so they start acting in the interest of the corporations / major interest groups / multi-millionaires - even if the policy conducted is not in the interest of the ordinary US voters.

 

 

So Chuck Kottke's idea of limiting the donations to a sum where most voters are able to contribute with a donation seems like a big step forward - at least to me.

Inspired of the previous posts:

 

It says: "OF, BY and FOR the PEOPLE!"

 

@ OF the people: It seems to me that those elected do not represent the typical American voter: The candicates and in particular the candidate elected are/is typical (a) multi-millionaire(s) backed by donations from other multi-millionaires / major interest groups plus corporations.

 

 

@ By the people: Only around 50% of the Americans bother to vote - probably because so many feel that the candidates do not represent them so they are desillusioned thinking that it will not help them to vote. The policy conducted - whoever wins - will not improve their situation anyway, so why bother vote!

 

 

@ FOR the people: Having been supported by corporations and donations from multi-millionaires, the leading candidates and the candidate(s) elected for a high office feel that they have to give something back to the (major) donors - be it multi-millionaires, interest group(s) or corporations - so they start acting in the interest of the corporations / major interest groups / multi-millionaires - even if the policy conducted is not in the interest of the ordinary US voters.

 

 

So Chuck Kottke's idea of limiting the donations to a sum where most voters are able to contribute with a donation seems like a big step forward - at least to me.

> Thanks Nancy for your kind words of support!:) By comparison, how does Denmark address this issue?

how does Denmark address this issue[/color]?

 

 

The Danish government / candidates are to a higher degree than in the USA - OF the people, By the people and For the people.

 

@ OF the people: The representation is more broad - many walks of life are represented in the Danish parliament aka. Folketinget.

 

@ BY the people: The participation of Danes in elections to the Danish parliament Folketinget is much higher:

 

Translation of text from a Danish encyclopedia / link: http://www.denstoredanske.dk/Samfund,_jura_og_politik/Samfund/Valgteorier_og_valgmetoder/valgdeltagelse

 

"In Denmark the participation in the election by the latest 19 elections to the Danish Folketing since 1953 has been 80-90% with an average of 86,3%; in 2005 the participation was 84,5%."

 

 

FOR the people: It is my impression that the government and also the Danish Folketing represent the interest of the Danish population.

 

Also in Danish politics, there are donations from private persons, interest groups and corporations. Donations exceeding DKK 20,000 have to appear in the party statements.

 

But it is possible for corporations to support one candidate with for instance DKK 100,000 without it figuring anywhere if the corporations let 5 of its branches support the candidate with less than DKK 20,000 each.

 

In Denmark, trade unions typically support the Social-Democratic Party and the Socialistic People's Party, SF (F for Folks / people), whereas the Conservative and liberal parties are typically supported by corporations and private persons.

 

 

CONCLUSION: The Danish government / candidates are to a higher degree than in the USA - OF the people, By the people and For the people

Just my opinion here. Coupled with 2-3 hours of candidate research.

 

Republican Candidates

 

Michelle Bachmann.

(-) Founded the Tea Party Caucus in the House and supports the Tea Party movement. That alone should make her ineligible to run in the first place. :P

 

Herman Cain.

(-) Defeated Clinton's health bill in the mid 1990's. He's anti-social security and supports decreasing corporate tax rates, because the rich aren't rich enough as it is. Opposes universal healthcare, anti-gay marriage, supported the Iraq war, wouldn't admit a Muslim to his cabinet (???).

Helllll no to him.

 

Newt Gingrich.

(-) Opposes stopping corps. from basically buying elections, multiple drug offender should be put to death (are you serious?), supports school prayer and turning schools into highly-competitive organizations, opposes universal healthcare although he's also the first one with pros.

(+)Supports space exploration and preserving forest lands.

Finally a Republican candidate with a little sense.

 

Gary Johnson

(-) Wants to slash gov. spending, supports low taxes, wants to cut Medicare and Medicaid by 43% (oh my word hell noooo!), called "The original Tea Party Candidate" for his stance on taxes, though he is not a member.

(+) Opposed Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

 

Fred Karger

(+) supports gay marriage and rights. Apparently the first openly gay candidate to run for president from one of the two major parties. Unfortunately not much about his other positions at all.

 

Andy Martin

(-) Spread the false rumors that President Obama was a Muslim, was not born in the U.S., insisted he knew where Bin Laden was back in 2003, accused President Bush of using cocaine, was quoted as saying "I am able to understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did.","Jew survivors are operating as a wolf pack to steal my property." and called his '86 Senate Campaign "The Anthony R. Martin-Trigona Congressional Campaign to Exterminate Jew Power in America", so anti-semitic as well. What a nut.

 

Jimmy McMillan

(-) Does not believe Global Warming is man-made, was against the bail out, supports low taxes, supports combination of government with Christianity (helllll no, this is no fascist nation, thanks anyway!).

(+) Against adjustable rent, against cutting aid to education and elderly.

 

 

Rob Paul

(-) Opposes immigration, supports smaller gov., champions low taxes, supports school prayer, avidly for gun rights, against federal environmental protection, treats the nation like 50 individual states rather than one country. What is that? Seriously.

(+) Does not support reintroducing the draft, favors gay marriage, is pro-life, supports stem-cell research, favors drug legalization (I never used but I think they should be).

 

Tim Pawlenty

Little info to analyze

 

Mitt Romney

 

(-) Supports, death penalty, advocates highly competitive schools , for firearm rights, strongly against medical marijuana use at all, does not support stem cell research, against unions, opposes unemployment benefits, for low taxes.

(+) Pro-life except in rape cases, against school prayer, strongly against global warming and emissions, pro-equality for women and minorities in the work place, for universal healthcare.

 

Rick Santorum

 

(-) Anti-immigration, sought to replace science teachings in school with religious ones, against ga rights and marriage, supported Iraq war.

 

Jonathon Sharkey

 

(-) wanted to impale President Bush, called him (a strong right if I'm not mistaken) a communist, and thinks he is a vampire. Analysis over.

 

If I had to choose, and I'm definitely not a Republican if you can't tell, Romney is my man with Paul second. I'd definitely like to see President Obama re-elected. Actually, if I had my way, I would love to see a socialist candidate elected. Not that that'll happen. But it strikes me funny how socialism is as far left as libertarianism is far right, and yet it gets essentially no support on the national level whatsoever. That is completely ridiculous. And what I find funny about the Republican agenda is how they're so for capitalisim and yet also for strict Constitutional interpretation. Really. Well where in the Const. does it say anything about the U.S. being a capitalist nation? OH RIGHT. IT DOESN'T. All I see is "Of, by, and for the people" and "Provide by the general welfare". That sounds a lot more like socialism then the atrocious, capitalistic agenda where the very top 1% make more than the bottom 95% combines. Completely ridiculous and just plain wrong. :P

Just my opinion here. Coupled with 2-3 hours of candidate research.

 

 

If I had to choose, and I'm definitely not a Republican if you can't tell, Romney is my man with Paul second. I'd definitely like to see President Obama re-elected. Actually, if I had my way, I would love to see a socialist candidate elected. Not that that'll happen. But it strikes me funny how socialism is as far left as libertarianism is far right, and yet it gets essentially no support on the national level whatsoever. That is completely ridiculous. And what I find funny about the Republican agenda is how they're so for capitalisim and yet also for strict Constitutional interpretation. Really. Well where in the Const. does it say anything about the U.S. being a capitalist nation? OH RIGHT. IT DOESN'T. All I see is "Of, by, and for the people" and "Provide by the general welfare". That sounds a lot more like socialism then the atrocious, capitalistic agenda where the very top 1% make more than the bottom 95% combines. Completely ridiculous and just plain wrong. :P

Leaving out the defense stuff from the preamble, it does sound a lot like a socialist writing! .."We the People, In order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution for the United States of America." Imagine that - our government is supposed to promote the general welfare (well-being) of the citizens, secure our liberties (whether they be penned or not), and do so for not just ourselves, but for future generations! Sounds pretty progressive to me.

When one considers it, here we had just fought and won a war against a government which was under the spell of a giant corporation (East India Co.), and which fostered great inequities. And consider also, it was a war over resources - we wanted our timber rights (the equivalent of oil in that day and age), over lands here that were being exploited on the cheap.. How does this compare to what the Middle Eastern countries are dealing with today... hm...

The problem we face today is not just who we elect for President, but how the elections are funded. It's the central problem gumming up progress in our nation - the need to make the elections fair and to equalize supporter's power in supporting candidates, so the candidates reflect the will of broad bases of support. Central to getting true representation is the dire need for comprehensive campaign finance reform. If it takes an amendment, then that is what we must do. But it's something that I think has broad support in the nation as a whole, candidates in the past campaigned on it and got significant support even as outsiders, so now is the time for setting down a clear right which for so long has been neglected and abused by those with the money to control the process.

A sing along to the Preamble! :hat:[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLP_HGKq-jg]YouTube - School House Rock Preamble[/ame]

http://www.opensecrets.org/

 

<3

a photo I took where I live. and I thought the president should work more to his campaign maybe :thinking:

 

 

Thanks, Fix42YellowClocks, I've been looking for something like that.

 

Jonathon Sharkey

 

(-) wanted to impale President Bush, called him (a strong right if I'm not mistaken) a communist, and thinks he is a vampire. Analysis over.

 

I love this guy :wacky: you should check out his wikipedia page.

Sad fact is most of the time the 2 major candidates are BOTH idiots and nobody can do anything about it because they're the ones who work the hardest for the nomination.

"it's always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich..."

Rob Paul

(-) Opposes immigration, supports smaller gov., champions low taxes, supports school prayer, avidly for gun rights, against federal environmental protection, treats the nation like 50 individual states rather than one country. What is that? Seriously.

(+) Does not support reintroducing the draft, favors gay marriage, is pro-life, supports stem-cell research, favors drug legalization (I never used but I think they should be).

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

 

1. Ron Paul has no problem with immigrants, legal or illegal. He would eliminate laws making it difficult to become a US citizen.

 

2. There's nothing inherently wrong with a small government. You want big government? Move to North Korea.

 

3. Taxation is theft. It is a non-voluntary transfer of wealth from those who aren't politically well-connected to those who ARE.

 

4. Ron Paul supports the privatization of all schools. If you want to go to a religious school, you can go pray all day that God will help you learn math. If you want to go to a secular school, you can study math normally. It's all about choice, not force.

 

5. You know who's for gun rights? Obama. Clinton. Jimmy Carter. Except they only support gun rights for their friends - the police. You know, the guys who protect them when they make overwhelmingly unpopular things laws that YOU MUST obey or be killed. The police also regularly break into peaceful peoples' houses and shoot them and their family. So yeah, all politicians LOVE guns. They just want their buddies to have them, not you.

 

6. The Federal Government does a terrible job at protecting the environment. The market does a better job (because owners of land have an incentive to keep their property value high).

 

7. 50 states? What is that? It's called FREEDOM to CHOOSE. You don't like a law? You can go somewhere else. Right now we have 195 countries in the world. Using your logic, this is madness, and we should only have one. Then, when you don't like a global law or tax, you can go to Mars.

 

Decentralization of power is the goal because it allows for systemic resiliency, rather than authoritarian regimes that eventually collapse and kill/impoverish many millions of people.

 

8. He doesn't support taxpayer funding of stem cell research. He'd just make it legal.

 

__________________________________________

 

If you want to understand Ron Paul, just ask yourself this simple question: Is it voluntary? If it's not voluntary, Ron Paul is against it. If it is, he's fine with it.

3. Taxation is theft. It is a non-voluntary transfer of wealth from those who aren't politically well-connected to those who ARE.

 

I completely disagree. By living in the country, you accept the fact that you're going to have to pay taxes. How else would roads be maintained, the nation kept secure, public school be kept open, etc.? They all need government funding, and unless everyone in the country contributes something, none of those could be supported by the few thousand or so that would be willing to pay for them.

 

edit: and everyone has to pay taxes, regardless of how "politically well-connected" they are. If you fail to pay your taxes, it's a crime, whether you're Bush or my next door neighbor.

d00d you crayzay taxes are important

d00d you crayzay taxes are important

 

:nod:

 

True dat Crests, true dat.

How else would roads be maintained, the nation kept secure, public school be kept open, etc.?

 

The same way everything else is paid for - voluntarily.

 

You want food? Pay for it.

 

You want an education? Pay for it.

 

You want healthcare? Pay for it.

 

You want security? Pay for it.

 

You want clothes? Pay for them.

 

House? Pay.

 

Space ship? Pay.

 

In any market, the production of goods and services is maximized and directed by the profit motive. Governments make the claim that the profit motive is a bad thing - that it is selfish and hurts the poor. But governments are comprised of humans (just as corporations are). And as such, Governments are subject to the EXACT same greed, malice, and imperfections corporations are - only they have a violently enforced monopoly.

 

Monopolies are bad. Over time, the quality of their goods/services falls, while the prices go up.

oh the laughter, go take a consumer math class or something

Yes, the only way anyone will ever learn math is if there's a violent monopolist in charge of teaching it. And the teachers must be paid 70k a year because, well... it's for the children!

lolololololololololololololololololol

2. There's nothing inherently wrong with a small government. You want big government? Move to North Korea.

 

I'm just stopping by to say "I love you."

Gah, you're only 17. I was going to suggest we make thousands of libertarian babies together.

 

Wait, maybe it's legal in your state or mine. I can't keep track of all these friggin laws.

But she has vagina.

you no like vagina...

Perhaps donate sperm?

If so, i want some of dat sperm

The same way everything else is paid for - voluntarily.

 

You want food? Pay for it.

 

You want an education? Pay for it.

 

You want healthcare? Pay for it.

 

You want security? Pay for it.

 

You want clothes? Pay for them.

 

House? Pay.

 

Space ship? Pay.

 

In any market, the production of goods and services is maximized and directed by the profit motive. Governments make the claim that the profit motive is a bad thing - that it is selfish and hurts the poor. But governments are comprised of humans (just as corporations are). And as such, Governments are subject to the EXACT same greed, malice, and imperfections corporations are - only they have a violently enforced monopoly.

 

Monopolies are bad. Over time, the quality of their goods/services falls, while the prices go up.

 

So you want the upper class to have bodyguards, nice houses, a surplus of food, healthcare, and a spaceship because they have the funds to?

 

And you want the poor, who may have been born to a poor family (so not their fault) to be starving, homeless, without any way to get treated if they fall ill, and uneducated BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT? And how do you think our economy would react? How would the world react? This is the most INHUMANE AND UNETHICAL solution to ANYTHING I have ever heard.

 

There would be gang violence throughout the country, and anybody that would have enough money to stop it would be riding high in their spaceships because they have the money to do that.

 

I can't even believe you would even suggest something like that. And I bet you're expecting you'd be one of the rich asses riding around in a spaceship, hm?

 

oh the laughter, go take a consumer math class or something

 

No, he has to pay for the consumer math class. After all, if you want an education you'd better pay for everything about it.

 

Yes, the only way anyone will ever learn math is if there's a violent monopolist in charge of teaching it. And the teachers must be paid 70k a year because, well... it's for the children!

 

Now you're talking about unions. Go make another thread to bitch about that in.