One of few good Democrats.

Party On -595vd4.jpg (click to show) - Upvote for you!

term limits sign the petition mail it to your state representative and state senators

This is true, but people should do their homework.

There are financial disclosures required of Congress and the president usually releases their taxes.

Biden, as an example, made most of his money after leaving office. He nearly had to file bankruptcy due to his son Beau's medical bills while he was VP.

There are wealthy politicians in Congress (more than half are millionaires) but a good number are much more modest.

https://www.opensecrets.org/personal-finances/top-net-worth

Requiring a candidate or politician to release their taxes is not a good idea. I see where you are going with it and it is a good idea until you realize just how horrible our tax law is.

If a candidate releases their taxes then the opposing party will always be able to find a violation. Our tax code is so awfully written that all of us are guilty of at least felony level violations of the tax law. It does not matter how honest and meticulous you are.

All this is is another attempt for party A to hold something over party B.

Election law is also horribly written. It takes a team of lawyers to represent any new candidate just so they can wind their way through the legal jungle. If they make one mistake the incumbent will pounce on them.

You are 100% right in that people should do their homework but that is not very likely to happen. Also we need term limits.

I would also like to repeal the 17th amendment and let states decide who the senators for their state will be. I don't know if it will work but I am hoping that this stops senators from taking graft and doing backroom deals with large corporations.

In addition the law that was passed under the Wilson administration that limits members of the House of Representatives to 435. It should go back to the Constitutional limit of 1 rep for every 30,000 people. I can understand why it was limited back then because the congressional building was limited in size. But we live in the digital age and sessions can be held online. That way the reps will always be accessible to their constituents.

This greatly increase the size of the House and it will make it harder for corporations and other outside influences to buy votes. Plus the people will be far better represented. If their rep is not doing what their constituents want they can always run them out of town or a rail and/or tar and feather them..... just kidding.

I disagree on the taxes. I mean, or isn't law so whatever, but I think the president should be transparent. And I don't recall any president being called out for any tax fraud in the past. At a minimum though they should have to do the same financial disclosure Congress does.

Term limits are a red herring.

You probably think (I'm assuming, yes I know what that makes me) that the money and influence that lobbyists have in DC is bribes and money funneled to family members, but you are mostly wrong. Thats the sort of thing that gets noticed especially in this modern age.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/02/state-of-money-in-politics-the-price-of-victory-is-steep/ This just breaks down some of the costs.

The average cost of a successful campaign in 2012 was $1,689,580 for the house and $10,476,451 for the Senate. Some were less, some were more. But the point is unless you have a grass roots movement of individuals funding you, are already rich, or have big donors you can't win. So the influence isn't bribes. It's 'do what I want or I'll fund someone else'. I'm not saying they are all clean and good, but I think most of them are there to do what they think is right. But with the understanding that it isn't just the voters with the power to fire them. That's actually more insidious in my mind than pure bribery. It is systemic. They need to cap funding period.

My point is term limits would be like Nascar changing drivers every year - the owners//sponsors would remain the same.

I'm not particularly tied to size one way or the other, but there would need to be some sort of fillabuster reform among other rules changes. With 11000 representatives, everything would take forever.

"I disagree on the taxes. I mean, or isn't law so whatever, but I think the president should be transparent. And I don't recall any president being called out for any tax fraud in the past. At a minimum though they should have to do the same financial disclosure Congress does."

There is a book I have am planning on reading one of these days called Three Felonies A Day. I thought I remembered it being about just tax law but apparently it is all laws at the federal level.

Here is a link.
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00505UZ4G/ref=nosim/0sil8

Regardless, if there is that many laws on the books then are we really "the land of the free"?

"The average cost of a successful campaign in 2012 was $1,689,580 for the house and $10,476,451 for the Senate. Some were less, some were more. But the point is unless you have a grass roots movement of individuals funding you, are already rich, or have big donors you can't win."

That's for sure. I have no idea what can be done about it because congress makes the law. When they passed a campaign finance bill they wrote that bill with a back door so that they could continue the flow of money. If they come up with a new bill they will do the exact same thing. They are not about to put limits on the amount of money they can collect.

I am not 100% in step with the idea of term limits. The reason why is because term limits were intended to be decided by the people.

I hadn't thought about term limits being like Nascar. That makes sense and it is also sad.

One of the things the founders put into congress was gridlock. Everyone complains about it because it gets in the way of "congress doing their job". What people don't realize is that every time congress creates a new law we have less freedom. Not all laws are written to prevent a crime. Most of the time they are written to restrict people and businesses.

If the filibuster prevents laws from being written then it must remain. So must everything else that prevents Congress from "doing their job". I would like to see Congress meet every other year for about a month or two, similar to Texas' state legislature. I would also like to see Congress be made to repeal 10 laws for every new law the pass.

So the more reps the better. If it made it take decades to get a law passed then that would be awesome. We need to return to the freedoms this nation was founded on.

I do hear you on term limits… upvote for thinking a bit. I don’t think, honestly, that will solve the problem.

I do think more transparency is harmless and is the solution to the elusive problems you are contending.

I agree.

I'm hopeful about campaign finance reform. Like I said, they don't really benefit from it. Some only win because of how things are, but even the ones I disagree with are generally there to do good. In theory it would level the playing field and they wouldn't have to fear someone with deeper pockets.

I disagree about each new law being less freedom... Some laws are just about clarifying... And sometimes it's like a warning label on bleach - do we have to say it? Yes, turns out we do.
But yes, the slowness itself is a feature. Consensus is hard. Compromise means give in both sides and that isn't awesome in the era of sound bites. That slowness protects up from impulsiveness.

Well I disagree on no laws being good. I wish there were many more laws... Because I would make them unbundle shit. A law to ensure small Farmers have protectin from being sued out of existence by mega farms... Why are there words in here about school lunches?

Clumpy Clown made more money for his properties playing golf and billing the tax payers for his failing businesses than he did as POTUS.

Right, because he donated all four years of his presidential salary to charity, therefore he made NOTHING as POTUS. ZERO. ZILCH. NADA.

Good work.

The amount of government money spent shuttling Trump to his properties and then spent at the properties remains a bit murky. We know that Trump’s first four trips to Mar-a-Lago cost about $14 million, mostly in the costs of operating the aircraft necessary for the trip. If we assume that each trip to the resort costs about $3.4 million, that’s $109 million just for the Mar-a-Lago trips alone.
Not all of that money goes to Trump, of course. The Washington Post reported in October that the government had been billed about $2.5 million by Trump properties since he had taken office.

see if your math skills allows you to figure out which is more, $2.5 million or what a POTUS gets paid.

A great president, like FDR.

He's right. It is all socialism. Socialism is always about taking money from the producers and giving very, very small amount of that money to the people they brag about helping. That is exactly what all of those social programs are. Stealing money for the government and throwing scraps to the "little people".

None of those programs have ever accomplished their intended goals, in addition they are destructive to the economy. They always do much more harm then any intended good.

Thank you for proving that Americans don't know shit about what Socialism is (and for proving President Truman right).

"What on earth are you talking about? Anti-Western? Pro-socialist?"
You brought it up. I was just speaking your language.

There are a number of people in the world who are living in abject poverty. The communists have been for quite a few years now, indoctrinating these people with the idea the their poverty is caused by US and UK "Imperialism". What they are never told is that the worst imperialists mankind has ever known is communism. Communism is based on your beloved socialism and has caused far worse poverty than even socialism. But then you ask any real communist they will tell you that socialism is the gateway drug to communism.

I'm literally anti-socialist, you stupid dingbat.
SOCIALISM DOESN'T EXIST IN THE WEST, YOU'RE NOT IN DANGER OF SOCIALISM, HEALTHCARE ISN'T SOCIALISM!
This is why MAGA and America have such a reputation for being dumb. BECAUSE YOU ARE;

And yet you defend it so passionately. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

No I don't, c**t. Get out of Mummy's basement.

The fact that you don't take people for their word when they say they are socialists, the fact that you cannot see how there are people all around the world trying to push socialist ideology step by step is astounding to me.

The fact that you cannot see what the UN's Agenda 21 and 2030 is about or more specifically the World Economic Forum's Great Reset is about is just beyond comprehension. The WEF literally wants to destroy the world's economy and end capitalism. They think they are going to "Build Back Better" a new system where "You will own nothing and you will be happy" and "You will rent everything".

But when I say all of that you say that is not socialism. When I describe socialism to you you say that is not socialism. When I point out people who say they are socialists you say they are not socialists. When I point out nations that are socialist you say they are not socialist.

Then you pointed out 3 nations who's economy is market based and not labor based and claim they are socialist. One of those nations you claim to be living in.

You claim government run healthcare is not socialism, yet actual socialists say that public schools are socialist.

I do not understand this world that you live in. Ever since the dawn of mankind there have always been malignant narcissists who seek to control other people. They have set themselves up and kings, emperors and dictators. Out of all of those monarchies and oligarchies came several ideologies that have similar features that maintain and promote those monarchies and oligarchies. One of them is socialism. Socialism has not been codified so that it can be implemented with several variations. Sometimes it is full on authoritarian and other times it is partially implemented in varying degrees. But the commonality that all socialist regimes have is to take political power away from the individual and give it to the government. That is the base that all socialist regimes hinge on.

Marx and Engels tried to codify socialism but they called it communism. They added more than just taking power from the individual. They added no private property rights. They added that the collective control the means of production and the central planners control the collective.

There will always be a percentage of the world who want to take everything from everyone for themselves. On the individual level we call them thieves. On a large scale endeavor we call it socialism.

The fact that you are so ignorant yet arrogant is so very American.

"I'm far more fortunate to have been born in Australia."

You should be proud of where you are from. Australia is a great nation.

Wait, we actually agree on something?

I am very fortunate to have been born in America.

I'm far more fortunate to have been born in Australia.

It appears that you are the only person on the planet that understands what socialism is. Everyone else, including Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Guevara, Chavez, and every other socialist on the planet has ever said was just flat out wrong.

It is only you. Because, just like what every single socialist dictator who has ever rose to power has said, "everyone else got it wrong".

Perhaps you can enlighten us mere mortals of the greatness of YOUR socialism.

It's not a matter of what I think, or what you think. Socialism has a definition, one spelled out by its founder. The very basic definition is the abolition of private property. Not abolishing private property? You're not a socialist.
Let me rephrase that - when defining Socialism and Communism, either Karl Marx - the founder of those destructive philosophies himself - and every Socialist and Communist leader is wrong, or Americans are wrong.
And Hitler wasn't a socialist.

"The very basic definition is the abolition of private property. Not abolishing private property?"

What the heck are you trying to say here. Socialism is taking the right to own property away from the individual.

Hitler was a socialist. He was a member of the German Socialist party. Then he came up with his own ideas about what socialism should be and rose to power by promoting those ideas. Once he was a dictator he just became a dictator.

Nope, Hitler was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Which was about as socialist as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is democratic or a republic.

5dt7o5.jpg (click to show)

Just because you ran away from our other conversation, cowardly clown.

From now on, I shall call you CLOWARD.

So even though Hitler has joined the German Socialist party. Then created the National Socialist German Workers Party he was not a socialist????

When he took over Germany he didn't rule the nation based entirely on socialism. But that is to be expected because those promote socialism, communism, fascism or Nazism seldom remain true to their socialist background. Socialism is the tool dictators use to get power. That has been the case everytime it has been forced on people with 1 exception, the French Revolution. But the French Revolution was and absolute bloodbath.

No, he was never socialist.

Yes, but coming from you no one has ever been a socialist.

Other than actual socialists.

https://www.historynet.com/howls-of-socialism-killed-truman-health-insurance.htm

I wish it would have killed Obamacare. NOBODY wanted Obamacare. It never had a majority of approval when Obama was trying to shove it down our throats.

The absolute last people I want involved with my health care in any facet is the government. Especially a socialist government. I know that you think that you're the only one on the planet who truly understands socialism, but all of the other people who thought they truly understood socialism and found their way into becoming a dictator were always eugenicists. Not every eugenicist is a socialist but every socialist is a eugenicist.

Government does not have the right to determine the value of a person's life and render healthcare based on a person's value. Oh, I know that is not YOUR socialism, or at least that is not what you want anyone to think about YOUR socialism.

Literally every developed country has some form of universal healthcare.

And they pay through the nose for it. Maybe not out of pocket but definitely in their taxes.

You do realize that the reason why the US has always lead the way in medical technology is because of capitalism. Take capitalism away and we revert back to the feudal times of medieval Europe. Socialism is the road to serfdom.

Nope, it's much cheaper than Americans think. Far better to pay through taxes than in the emergency room.

Government has absolutely no reason to ever be efficient or effective. If something isn't working they just raise taxes.

It is impossible for government healthcare to cost less than private healthcare. It defies logic and reason to think otherwise.

And yet it literally does cost less. This is an absolute fact of reality. It's more efficient and not profit based.
And you'd rather people choose between bankruptcy and dying?

When and where? Name the country.

Australia, Canada, Britain, etc, etc, etc.

You don't have a single socialist politician in America. Ask anyone outside the US.
Common sense (universal healthcare etc) isn't Socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Socialists_of_America_members_who_have_held_office_in_the_United_States

Not socialists.

I guess socialism just doesn't exist and every who says they are socialists are all liars.

It doesn't exist in America and most Western countries.

When I name any place you tell me it doesn't exist. I don't even think you'll ever admit it exists anywhere. Are you afraid I'll show you why you are wrong by attacking your utopia?

Go back to kindergarten.

Are Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lying?

Sorely mistaken. I know you don't know any non-Americans and know absolutely nothing about the world, but any non-American will tell you: they're centrists (maybe centre-left), and Sanders just isn't controversial.

You can't possibly know that. I can tell you right now that not everyone outside of the Western world buys you BS. I know many people from other parts of the world who want absolutely nothing to do with socialism. The reason they are here is to escape socialism. Oh but then I guess those weren't socialist countries were they? Socialism doesn't exist anywhere other than in your brain.

YOU can't possibly know because you keep demonstrating that you know nothing about the world.

I know all about the anti-imperialist who hate the US and the UK for their imperialism but love communist imperialism.

Evidently you don't because there's none in this conversation.

Universal everything is the promise that socialists use to trick the unsuspecting into accepting that nightmare. What socialism gives instead of healthcare is eugenics.

So in YOUR version of socialism is it just power and control from the ruling overlords with no healthcare? Just asking.

It's literally standard Western non-socialist practice.

Then what is a non Western socialist practice? Human sacrifice?

Huh?

Human sacrifice is NOT a Western practice. So I was just asking if you are so opposed to Western civilization then what do you intend on replacing it with?

What the outstanding values that has advanced society outside of Westen civilization ? I am not saying the people are superior, I'm saying the values are. And the values outside of Western civilization that has brought people out of poverty and misery are the same values found in Western civilization.

There is no copyright we hold on success. Any nation can repeat our success by allowing people to act entirely in their own best interest. Especially without government intervention.

Western civilization, specifically the United States of America, advanced society at a faster rate than any time prior. We did in 200 years what the rest of mankind did in 2,000 years.

It's not a specific race that made that happen. Race played no role. It was freedom and morality. Without both mankind lives in poverty. With both more people are lifted out of poverty than any other economic/political system. Freedom tempered with self governance based on Judeo/Christian ethics has dramatically improved the lives of more people that anything else. It's not even close.

Your notion of tearing it all down because some idiot control freaks (who cannot abide people acting in their own best interest) have convinced you that people are much better off working entirely in the best interest of the control freaks, is insanity.

I don't want it. No sane person would want it. And no matter how much you protest that it is not socialism it does change the truth. I'm sorry you were sold a bill of goods that made socialism look like utopia and you just can't let that go. It's not my fault you are incapable of thinking your way through all of that sunshine they pumped up your skirt.

Socialism is slavery.

What on earth are you talking about? Anti-Western? Pro-socialist? Do you have a list of dumb stereotypes to rattle off or something?
Your reading and comprehension skills seem about as non-existent as your knowledge of the world.

"Australia, Canada, Britain, etc, etc, etc"

Oh my goodness!!!! And you think I'm the one who doesn't understand socialism. Those countries are more socialistic than the US but they have market based economies not labor based. They have private property rights. Your country of Australia has more economic freedom than the US. Economic freedom does not exist is a socialist state.

I really hope to you don't have US citizenship and you're a citizen of Australia and that Australia doesn't honor duel citizenship. Because we don't need someone with your ignorance voting in America. I don't want you voting in Australia either because I have 2 friends who live there and I don't want your ignorance screwing up their lives.

Have you been paying attention at all? I said they're NOT socialist, that healthcare is NOT socialist.

I paid attention. You're just wrong.

Nice self description.