I think the media has done a terrible job covering Trump. As our news model has changed to more click-based, all outlets saw him as a goldmine. Anything Trump-related, especially something designed to stoke outrage, is automatic huge engagement. So, everyday they took the most innocuous things (stuff that was out of the ordinary, but not necessarily bad) and ran stories that made it seem like the sky was falling. This constant barrage of, "Trump bad!" understandably turned people off and made them distrustful of the media. And then when Trump actually did things that were quite bad, the media had lost credibility and it could not convince people that this dude is actually proposing some very anti-democratic and unconstitutional things.
Trump supporters, how do you square this?
- Thread starter CP87
- Start date
I think the media has done a terrible job covering Trump. As our news model has changed to more click-based, all outlets saw him as a goldmine. Anything Trump-related, especially something designed to stoke outrage, is automatic huge engagement. So, everyday they took the most innocuous things (stuff that was out of the ordinary, but not necessarily bad) and ran stories that made it seem like the sky was falling. This constant barrage of, "Trump bad!" understandably turned people off and made them distrustful of the media. And then when Trump actually did things that were quite bad, the media had lost credibility and it could not convince people that this dude is actually proposing some very anti-democratic and unconstitutional things.
Fryowa
Administrator
2 year term limits on congress/senate members, 4 year term limits on president for stability, maximum $60,000 salary, lifetime ban on owning any traded investments other than index funds (no individual stocks, no “managed” mutual funds, etc.), lifetime ban on holding a seat or executive position within a public or private corporation over $100,000,000 per year in revenue, 10 years of publicly-disclosed audits and publicly-disclosed tax returns. If you have the desire to make a difference—whatever side you’re on—you can still make a living and if it’s not enough money for you, then you aren’t someone who’s putting the good of the country first.
No, I’m not kidding. You can still pay bills, own a home, own your vehicles, have retirement accounts. The only people you’d get to run for office would be those who have a conviction do what they think is right to make that sort of commitment. In return you get lifetime deductible-free health insurance paid for.
I fit those criteria other than being very slightly over the income limits. I’d have to take a small pay cut but other than that I hold no positions on boards and I already only invest in no-load index funds for my retirement. You might say many qualified people wouldn’t run, but you’d still get wealthy people to do it. They just wouldn’t be able to have a lifetime job and wouldn’t be able to be bought out. You’d still get millionaire lawyers and business owners, etc., but they wouldn’t be doing it for money or power.
Being a politician was never intended to be made a lifelong career out of, and was never intended to be something to be made rich and powerful from. Until you remove the opportunity to become a career lawmaker and incentive for corruption—there is no fix my friend. None at all.
Guess who makes those rules, though…
Couldn't agree more.
I think people are going to find out during the next election that what went down the last two elections had nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with where things went with social media and click media. During the next election, we will hear "this guy is worse than Trump" a million times.
Two things here. Arnold is the guy who said "F your freedoms" during covid, so im glad he'0us not on team Trump. Second, he seems completely swayed by January 6th, which adds to my point of when one side gains everything by an event and the other side loses everything from the same event, you might want to question who caused said event. You can call it conspiracy theories all you want, but there was nothing to gain from Trump on that day "unless they brought guns". Yet there was everything to gain for democrats. When deciding if a conspiracy has legs, you have to ask who stood to gain what. The answer to that question makes me believe (or not believe) the conspiracy. Trump gains nothing 100 out of 100 times and democrats gain a lot 100 out of 100 times in that event. Arnold's post shows what they gained and what Trump lost. Most obvious false flag event ever.The Arnold has spoken:
x.com
x.com
Yes but no income tax would make up for that if that's the route they went.
He hurt the value of Twitter through advertising because he stood up for free speech. That is a hit he was willing to take. The point is, he runs Twitter way more efficiently, which is the more relevant comparison.Being really good at one thing (and he is a really good engineer and entrepreneur) does NOT make you really good at everything. He has absolutely murdered the value of twitter, and for all of his talent, he is erratic and either gullible or not especially concerned with the truth.
Elon Musk has yet to reverse X's downward financial spiral
Plummeting ad revenue has hurt the platform formerly known as Twitter since the billionaire bought it two years ago.www.deseret.com
Six Lies Elon Musk Believed (in the last 24 hours)
I just think the information environment is so bad right now. It is dizzying. I have always felt that the lying when you have a large audience will eventuall...www.youtube.com
We will never know because the Democrat party choose to skip the democratic process.
That would be a fair point if there wasn't a full on attack the second he won the primary. They just all learned he was a terrible person at the exact same time?
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
1000% agree with redefining congressional positions as service and not a pathway to wealth. That is an issue that deserves much more focus, IMO, and has contributed greatly to the decline of our system.
I would piggyback that earmarks and pork-barreling need to completely be barred from the legislative process. Both are ingrained as a traditional part of the process, and both parties are culpable, but allowing for either promotes corruption and selfishness.
I will say that 2-year term limits is probably too short. Many well-qualified people would not consider uprooting their families and lives to serve if it is for only 24 months. Not worth the time and effort. I would propose a 4-year term with one second term possible (max two terms) if the constituency is pleased with the result.
Fryowa
Administrator
Respectfully, no way in heck. 8 years is 7 years longer than a lot of people stay at jobs nowadays. How many highly educated, upwardly motivated people do you know who stay in one job/location for 8 years?
And I would counter with this...
Uprooting your life would be a whole lot easier to do and plan for for 2 years. No one is going to just stick around Washington for 8 years and stay there if (like I suggested) there's no cushy positions or career in politics waiting for them. Serve two years, rip the Band-Aid off, and get back to life.
Also, lots of REALLY good military people uproot their families every 2-3 years for an entire career...many more than the total number of congresspeople.
Lastly...there's really no uprooting family unless you want to move to Washington on your own. Look at the huge number of congress members who still live in the same towns and even keep their "day" jobs in some capacity. I can name more than a handful in my part of the country who do just that.
2 years. Look at it like a civil or military service. The notion that it's a job is the entire problem here. Until this isn't looked at as a job and is looked at as a service with just enough compensation to support yourself, nothing will change (I'm under no illusion this will ever change, btw.)
Repeat after me...
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
I like it, but I'd be okay with upping the salary. Even at the current salary levels, that is not enough money to attract greedy sorts. The attraction is the fame, power, and the "set for life" accoutrments that go along with the position. So, I think your ideas about term-limits and the lifetime ban on boards and executive positions are the strongest deterrents to keep those away who are not in it for the right reasons.
We might also want to think about term limits on judicial appointments. As the legislative branch has been completely inept for the past few decades with obstructionism, and the executive branch was just limited by the SCOTUS ruling on the Chevron Deference, the judiciary is ever more powerful in shaping policy.
I still think the ranked-choice voting thing would make a difference...it is not a panacea, but it would at least nudge us toward more moderation, which is where most of the populace resides (in the middle).
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
LOL.Respectfully, no way in heck. 8 years is 7 years longer than a lot of people stay at jobs nowadays. How many highly educated, upwardly motivated people do you know who stay in one job/location for 8 years?
And I would counter with this...
Uprooting your life would be a whole lot easier to do and plan for for 2 years. No one is going to just stick around Washington for 8 years and stay there if (like I suggested) there's no cushy positions or career in politics waiting for them. Serve two years, rip the Band-Aid off, and get back to life.
Also, lots of REALLY good military people uproot their families every 2-3 years for an entire career...many more than the total number of congresspeople.
Lastly...there's really no uprooting family unless you want to move to Washington on your own. Look at the huge number of congress members who still live in the same towns and even keep their "day" jobs in some capacity. I can name more than a handful in my part of the country who do just that.
2 years. Look at it like a civil or military service. The notion that it's a job is the entire problem here. Until this isn't looked at as a job and is looked at as a service with just enough compensation to support yourself, nothing will change (I'm under no illusion this will ever change, btw.)
Repeat after me...
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
I definitely agree with you in theory, but I still think two years is a little short. Maybe my experience is skewed, but almost all of the people I know and work with have been at their positions for way longer than two years. Perhaps three would be reasonable compromise?
Either way, politics needs to be viewed as a service by people with the requisite common sense and proper motivations. That, and eliminating earmarks, pork-barreling, and lobbyists would go a long way towards establishing a degree of confidence in the process.
Fryowa
Administrator
I will also say this...
ALL of us would conduct ourselves differently if we knew our jobs were 100% safe no matter what for the next 8 years. We would get comfortable, we would take un-due chances, and we would lose all sense of accountability.
I know some here would take the holier than thou standpoint and say they wouldn't but that's simply not true.
Fryowa
Administrator
Judicial appointments I'm torn. I love the theory behind lifetime appointments because in theory it removes the incentive to be swayed. But in practice it's total bullshit.
At the end of the day there is too much chance in my opinion for the people selecting judges to put rogues in those seats if there were term limits. I think reforming the way they're selected would be the best avenue. But then again, the people making those rules are the congress/senate members who are their own bosses, so it's not really even worth wasting time thinking about it. To me, at least.
Fryowa
Administrator
Correct. Congress/senate members don't have to be lawyers, poli-sci people, or CEOs. But I bet if you looked, probably 80% or better are.
There are a whole lot of people in this world with more common sense and levelheadedness than either of those 3 groups.
Education <> intelligence.
Respectfully, no way in heck. 8 years is 7 years longer than a lot of people stay at jobs nowadays. How many highly educated, upwardly motivated people do you know who stay in one job/location for 8 years?
And I would counter with this...
Uprooting your life would be a whole lot easier to do and plan for for 2 years. No one is going to just stick around Washington for 8 years and stay there if (like I suggested) there's no cushy positions or career in politics waiting for them. Serve two years, rip the Band-Aid off, and get back to life.
Also, lots of REALLY good military people uproot their families every 2-3 years for an entire career...many more than the total number of congresspeople.
Lastly...there's really no uprooting family unless you want to move to Washington on your own. Look at the huge number of congress members who still live in the same towns and even keep their "day" jobs in some capacity. I can name more than a handful in my part of the country who do just that.
2 years. Look at it like a civil or military service. The notion that it's a job is the entire problem here. Until this isn't looked at as a job and is looked at as a service with just enough compensation to support yourself, nothing will change (I'm under no illusion this will ever change, btw.)
Repeat after me...
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
POLITICS SHOUDN'T BE A CAREER
To play Devil's advocate, what about the notion that it takes several years to figure out how to DO the job? Part of the argument for career politicians is that they have the experience necessary to understand policy and get things done. That is a self-serving argument, but there has to be something to that, right? That sort of argument might push me more toward @#1DieHardHawk 's idea of slightly longer terms.
I would go for a longer term, but no second term. It seems messed up to have a public servant that spends the majority of their time trying to extend their job, not actually doing their job. Downside: if someone is really well liked and does a good job, the public cannot return them to office. But POLITICS SHOULDN'T BE A CAREER, I once heard someone pronouce. So, the popular official's party nominates someone else from their staff, and the popular person goes back to helping society as a citizen.
