John Dingell has a few ideas about how to fix American politics

ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I read the article. It wasn't from one of the many odious propaganda sites that tty posts from and thought the ideas were OK.

Two questions that came to me when reading the article:

Is the problem of division and stalemate in government really due to the constitution due to the people of this country?
Isn't it better if people fund campaigns through small donations rather than the government itself?

Regarding the outsized voice given to states with small populations in the Senate, it that such a bad thing? 32% of the population of the US reside in four states: California, Texas, Florida and New York. If we fix our "problem" by removing the Senate, wouldn't those four states ensure continuance of their place in the balance of power by channeling most resources and attention to themselves?

I also think that the article ignores the demographic shift going on today that is the source of so much anxiety and polarization in the current white majority. This gets back to my questioning if the real problem isn't the Senate but the people who vote for extreme nut jobs like Trump and radical right wing Republicans.
Click to expand...
Respect for actually reading and commenting on the article.

I agree with what you say here. I'm firmly of the opinion that America's problems lie more with gerrymandering and money controlling our political system than with how the Senate is composed.

These are John Dingell's ideas, I don't claim them as mine. I feel no obligation to agree with them all.
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
well, that's the problem. farmers shouldn't quit farming, they should just start supporting themselves for a couple of years....stop growing fields of shit they export, and start growing food they can eat themselves. if the farmers in this country ever got together and stood up for themselves, the rest of us wouldn't have any choice. the rest of the world would rape us with jacked up prices, and would ship us all the second rate shit that's about to go bad, if it hasn't already started. i think the farmers could hold out a lot longer than you think, and when the techies can't go to starbucks and mcdonalds....they'll start to see things differently.
of course, the real problem is distribution of wealth...but i think that means different things to different people.
some people want to rip the wealth out of the hands of the wealthy and share it out to "poor people"....which would work.....once....and then things would really get shitty quick. the wealthy would either just say fuck it and not make any more money to be taken away from them, or, they would invest in private security, and have armies to protect themselves with, so no more ripping anything out of their hands.....
i have a few ideas, but most of them are probably unworkable. this is a worldwide problem...you can't solve a problem like this in one country....as long as this kind of inequality is practiced is one part of the world, the rest of the world will suffer for it.
the people who own businesses, who have the ability to make money, shouldn't be punished for having that ability, but they should be forced to pay their employees a fair wage. everywhere. if you work 40 hours a week, you should make enough money to pay your bills, eat, save a little, and go out once every week or two....why would anyone work 50 or 60 hours a week, and still just barely make enough money to get by, with none to spare, no entertainment at all, have to eat a poor diet because they can't afford healthy food?...because they have to, they have no choice....and that's just wrong.
so what do we do about it? all i can suggest is we start passing laws in this country that protect workers and small business people, link the minimum wage to inflation, and a real estimate of what it takes to live slightly above the poverty line.
and start taxing people at a reasonable rate, a non negotiable, no loophole rate. ban tax lawyers....simplify the tax system, and you have no need for tax lawyers....you pay this percentage of your profits for the year. period.no matter how much you made for the year. period. everyone does, everywhere....no returns. if you have kids, that's up to you, why are the rest of us paying for you not using birth control?
this is devolving....things are indeed fucked up, and you have a point....just not sure how to fix things without armed insurrection...
Click to expand...
I think they missed their chance by 20 years. And I don't think that it would do any more than hurt them now. It would probably be fine for the cities. They would have to decrease meat consumption which would have a positive long term outcome. You would be very surprised to find out how much fresh produce is produced locally. Wheat and corn can be bought by the boatload.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
i don't think they should get paid at all. they shouldn't be forced to do it if they don't want to, but if they volunteer...they volunteered, you don't pay volunteers. i definitely think it should be taken into account when they judge their overall behavior for parole and early release, but, you don't pay volunteers.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, so you are okay with slavery.

Thanks for sharing.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
scary, huh? i live with these fucking monkeys...i've traveled all over the country, and i see them everywhere. they're in line with you at the store, their kids go to school with your kids.....so how do you change it? 40 years of pbs and good feelings, 150 years since the abolition of slavery...hundreds of thousand of years of evolution....and the monkeys are still throwing shit
Click to expand...
my take on this -- and I'm not saying 100% better -- but my take is that things are better today than they were 40 years ago. Also we are moving in the right direction, which is to the left.

Those "monkeys" are the majority of white people but no longer the majority in the country. We have three advantages; they are not the majority of people in this country, millennials, soon to be a major voting demographic, are more accepting of diversity and racial demographics are shifting away from the white super-majority. The white monkey-men can't win in the long term unless they are successful at defeating US democracy. So, how do we change it? Oppose them in every initiative they take, whether it's attacks on the free press, stacking the courts, voter suppression, stifling public education, projecting white power through fascism and so forth.

Regarding "time is on our side" -- California is the first country to go through the transition to a more diverse, socially progressive society and the rest of the country is on track to follow CA over the next twenty years.

Look To California For The Future Of Politics, Demographer Says

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602090970/look-to-california-for-the-future-of-politics-demographer-says

Well, I mean, people obviously associate California now with being a deep-blue state, which it is, but that was not always the case. The worm started turning in terms of presidential elections earlier. But if you look at the 1990s in California, that's an era of populist revolt, a revolt against bilingual education, against services for immigrants. I mean, Pete Wilson sort of put down his bet that, in fact, the best way for the Republicans forward in California is to whip up anti-immigrant sentiment...

And Schwarzenegger became the governor and pressed a very conservative agenda, had a big special initiative election where they put a lot of conservative wish-list stuff on the ballot, all of which - the important ones, all of which were defeated. And shortly after that is when things really start turning around in California.

When you see Schwarzenegger deciding he's not going to be able to get too much farther with that agenda, he starts cooperating with the Democrats. And then eventually, of course, you see Jerry Brown getting elected in 2010. And, you know, you see California being the leader on issues like climate change and issues like the minimum wage, on immigrants, women's rights. I mean, you name it. California is pretty much the apotheosis of the progressive program.

Of course, the story will only be an echo of what happened in California but overall trends in the US lag but track what happened in California.

Unfortunately for you and me, we might not live to see the day when this country is more diverse and progressive but I think we are heading that way. Oregon was pretty conservative in the 90's too but that's all changed. We are not a racially diverse state so it's not just all about race, it's about changes in attitude. Not that everybody in Oregon supports socially progressive politics but most do.
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Soybean farmers among many others in agriculture are suffering greatly due to the trade war.

Tell us again how agriculture isn't tied into the world market, moron.
Click to expand...
Gee Tty, your reading comprehension is as bad as your relationship skills. Here's the quote from my post" the rural areas who are also tied into the global economy but rarely understand it"

Or maybe you read an "early version" of my post.

So did Schuylaar defuse the Jenn situation. When did Florida become "another country".

Either way, you're funny and feckless. Remember how you are so sensitive about being called names like "moron"? We all know why. Lol
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
i see the point about the four most populous states taking care of themselves to the detriment of the rest of the country, and i'm sure that could be dealt with, with transparency and open accounting practices. as far as them having more votes to elect politicians with....so what? more people live there...so more people vote...seems like there are better simpler ways to insure equality. make the infrastructure of the Nation...National. no state roads, no private utilities, put the whole nation on the same system, with the same equipment. no more taking the lowest bid for government work. that's always seemed like a stupid idea....let the cheap ass fuckers who cut corners build the infrastructure the whole country rests on.....train people to do this stuff, and they all are government employees.

i think that the people who vote for nuts are a big part of the problem....but imagine if trump couldn't have spent millions on his campaign...if he had to stand up in front of cameras and debate both Hillary and Bernie, not once, or twice, but 20 times...if he had to answer unprepared questions from the crowd....if he hadn't been able to run a huge smear campaign......not to even mention the Russians who were actually running his campaign.....
many of those nuts would have still voted for him....they are fucking nuts, after all...but it would have cost him some of them.....

i personally would scrap the entire government we have in place and start over. would you re-roof, re-side, re-paint, re-wire, re-carpet, re-plumb a decrepit, decayed, rotten old house? or just burn the fucker to the ground and build a new house?
Click to expand...
I think you shortchange the idea of accountability; if the low bidder was forced by bond or other means to stand behind their work, the system would work just fine.

Accountability is exactly what's missing from our political system, thanks to the ability of those few with most of the money being able to control it.

That lack of accountability extends to most government organisations and contractors, from Lockheed Martin to local police. It's so pervasive that the coincidence explanation isn't credible; it's clearly how the system has intentionally been rebuilt to suit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
You are missing the reality of economies. Farming is a global market. Look at Singapore, lots of rich people, no farms. But people in Singapore are eating very well.

Your feelings about this are shared by many rural voters but the fact is, you could all stop farming and it wouldn't be the tech workers that would starve. They would get their food elsewhere; not as much of it, but they would get by.

The same thing is true about manufactured items and raw materials. You can't build shit without iron, wood, rubber, etc., but countries who specialize in the production of such things are poor as shit worldwide.
Click to expand...
This is cute.

It's obvious you've never asked the question, 'why'. Until you do, you'll always be uninformed and gullible.

You just swallow the standard story and never think about it.

This explains why your opinions lack value, depth or evidence of intelligence.
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
This is cute.

It's obvious you've never asked the question, 'why'. Until you do, you'll always be uninformed and gullible.

You just swallow the standard story and never think about it.

This explains why your opinions lack value, depth or evidence of intelligence.
Click to expand...
Good god. You accuse others of having empty and insulting logic. Just read your post! Oh nevermind, I will let the pigeon finish his chess game. In your mind, and your mind alone, Tty, you are totally winning.

So did Schuylaar help you clean up your relationship mess?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
Respect for actually reading and commenting on the article.

I agree with what you say here. I'm firmly of the opinion that America's problems lie more with gerrymandering and money controlling our political system than with how the Senate is composed.

These are John Dingell's ideas, I don't claim them as mine. I feel no obligation to agree with them all.
Click to expand...
Where I work we'll post up something that might not be practical but turns the way of looking at a problem on its head. We call them thought experiments and use them to drive creativity to find new solutions. Dingell said he didn't expect his ideas to be implemented but posted up a different way to look at the problem. His was a thought experiment and I liked the article even though we all know that the Senate isn't going to be abolished and probably ought not.

Regarding the electoral college, we don't need an amendment to end it. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Regarding gerrymandering and political campaign finance, nothing is going to change until Democrats are in control of congress and the WH. I think the whole thing will turn over the next 10-20 years, not next 2. Unfortunately, that means another 10-20 years of your cynical bitching. I'm so sorry for your family.
 
J

Jenns36

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
This is cute.

It's obvious you've never asked the question, 'why'. Until you do, you'll always be uninformed and gullible.

You just swallow the standard story and never think about it.

This explains why your opinions lack value, depth or evidence of intelligence.
Click to expand...
Ok then why? Mr. Has all the answers!
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
well, that's the problem. farmers shouldn't quit farming, they should just start supporting themselves for a couple of years....stop growing fields of shit they export, and start growing food they can eat themselves. if the farmers in this country ever got together and stood up for themselves, the rest of us wouldn't have any choice. the rest of the world would rape us with jacked up prices, and would ship us all the second rate shit that's about to go bad, if it hasn't already started. i think the farmers could hold out a lot longer than you think, and when the techies can't go to starbucks and mcdonalds....they'll start to see things differently.
of course, the real problem is distribution of wealth...but i think that means different things to different people.
some people want to rip the wealth out of the hands of the wealthy and share it out to "poor people"....which would work.....once....and then things would really get shitty quick. the wealthy would either just say fuck it and not make any more money to be taken away from them, or, they would invest in private security, and have armies to protect themselves with, so no more ripping anything out of their hands.....
i have a few ideas, but most of them are probably unworkable. this is a worldwide problem...you can't solve a problem like this in one country....as long as this kind of inequality is practiced is one part of the world, the rest of the world will suffer for it.
the people who own businesses, who have the ability to make money, shouldn't be punished for having that ability, but they should be forced to pay their employees a fair wage. everywhere. if you work 40 hours a week, you should make enough money to pay your bills, eat, save a little, and go out once every week or two....why would anyone work 50 or 60 hours a week, and still just barely make enough money to get by, with none to spare, no entertainment at all, have to eat a poor diet because they can't afford healthy food?...because they have to, they have no choice....and that's just wrong.
so what do we do about it? all i can suggest is we start passing laws in this country that protect workers and small business people, link the minimum wage to inflation, and a real estimate of what it takes to live slightly above the poverty line.
and start taxing people at a reasonable rate, a non negotiable, no loophole rate. ban tax lawyers....simplify the tax system, and you have no need for tax lawyers....you pay this percentage of your profits for the year. period.no matter how much you made for the year. period. everyone does, everywhere....no returns. if you have kids, that's up to you, why are the rest of us paying for you not using birth control?
this is devolving....things are indeed fucked up, and you have a point....just not sure how to fix things without armed insurrection...
Click to expand...
Money in politics has made this situation what it is.

Taxing the rich and the corporations they own would go a long way towards solving these problems you mention.

The notion that taxes don't work or aren't fair is simple, easily refuted propaganda; top tier tax rates in America were over 90% in the 1950s and 1960s, an era universally recognized as the economic pinnacle of American history.

Even the Founding Fathers themselves recognized the danger of allowing wealthy families to pass down the bulk of their wealth and advocated for inheritance taxes. That's not unfair; you want to see a class of people who don't work, look no further than trust fund babies.

Our President is an excellent example of all that's wrong with letting the rich keep all their money from generation to generation.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
There are some good studies about Trump voters that show their decision was almost completely driven by racism and misogyny and not economic anxiety. People who said they were economically stressed or worried about their economic status were as likely to vote for Clinton as Trump. People who answered to questions that probed for racist leanings to indicate they leaned toward racism were far and away more likely to vote for Trump over Clinton.

Trump is the racist president and his followers perhaps aren't all raving racists but they do lean toward racism.

Perhaps their racism is elevated by the economic decay of the 90% and especially the lower 30% income class and their sensitivity to race might recede if things are better but the main problem is white racism.

That's the conclusion I get when I read studies like this:

http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_IDC_conference.pdf

However, the effect of economic dissatisfaction is dwarfed by the relationship between sexism and racism and voting for Trump. For example, an individual who was average on all other variables in the model but registered the most sexist attitudes on the hostile sexism scale had a .65 probability of voting for Trump. That same individual would have just a .35 predicted probability of voting for Trump if she registered the least sexist attitudes. Thus, moving from one end of the sexism scale to the other produced a 30-point increase in support for Trump among the average likely voter. The effect for the racism scale was nearly identical – moving from the highest levels of acknowledgement and empathy for racism in American to the lowest levels was associated with about a 30-point increase in support for Trump.

I believed what the pundits said after the election that Trump's win was due to economic anxiety but better information came out later that changed my mind.
Click to expand...
You sure that study isn't looking at symptoms rather than causes?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
You sure that study isn't looking at symptoms rather than causes?
Click to expand...
Did you read it? It was a pretty good study and looked at several alternatives as to what triggered the Trump voter.

It was not economic anxiety.
It was not education.
The Trump voter was attracted to Trump's racist and misogynist rhetoric.

I have no idea what you mean by "symptom".
 
J

Jenns36

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
Good god. You accuse others of having empty and insulting logic. Just read your post! Oh nevermind, I will let the pigeon finish his chess game. In your mind, and your mind alone, Tty, you are totally winning.

So did Schuylaar help you clean up your relationship mess?
Click to expand...
He won't answer that question unclebaldrick! He's a narcissist and they don't ever acknowledge anything in fact they just avoid problemsby ignoring you or putting the blame on you!!!

Their mentality is they are always right so yeah in his mind he IS always winning even if he's not
 
Unclebaldrick

Unclebaldrick

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Where I work we'll post up something that might not be practical but turns the way of looking at a problem on its head. We call them thought experiments and use them to drive creativity to find new solutions. Dingell said he didn't expect his ideas to be implemented but posted up a different way to look at the problem. His was a thought experiment and I liked the article even though we all know that the Senate isn't going to be abolished and probably ought not.

Regarding the electoral college, we don't need an amendment to end it. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Regarding gerrymandering and political campaign finance, nothing is going to change until Democrats are in control of congress and the WH. I think the whole thing will turn over the next 10-20 years, not next 2. Unfortunately, that means another 10-20 years of your cynical bitching. I'm so sorry for your family.
Click to expand...
What family? His daughter only knows him well enough to stay far, far away. There's hope for her.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
Roger A. Shrubber said:
scary, huh? i live with these fucking monkeys...i've traveled all over the country, and i see them everywhere. they're in line with you at the store, their kids go to school with your kids.....so how do you change it? 40 years of pbs and good feelings, 150 years since the abolition of slavery...hundreds of thousand of years of evolution....and the monkeys are still throwing shit
Click to expand...
The 'monkeys' are getting desperate and hungry; income and wealth polarization is the best predictor of authoritarianism throughout history.

It can happen here and it's in the process of doing so.

The clown contingent here loves to bash on people like Noam Chomsky and Chris Hedges, but these individuals and those like them explain the root causes behind the current political, social and economic problems Americans face far better than anything found in the mass media.

Chris Hedges is scary to @Fogdog exactly because Chris has got it right- and because he is highly educated, extraordinarily experienced in the topics he discusses and his insights are backed up with facts and are thus irrefutable.

Truthdig.com isn't perfect; no news outlet is. It's time to start thinking critically and cast your net for information wider than the clown contingent here is comfortable with.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Unclebaldrick said:
What family? His daughter only knows him well enough to stay far, far away. There's hope for her.
Click to expand...
His kid was taken care of by somebody who cares. His parents are family. Maybe he has relatives? Imagine what it would be like to sit at the holiday dinner table with tty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top