Trump supporters, how do you square this?

Grady said:
Hate to say this, folks, but as someone who's worked on the inside of state and federal politics, until we have public financing of campaigns, outlaw PACs, and have tight caps on individual and corporate donations, the entirety of this discussion is just pissin' in the wind.
Click to expand...

If you put those proposals to the US populace, you would probably have 90% support. If you put those proposals to the politicans that make the rules, <1% support. So, how does that problem get fixed?
 
CP87 said:
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.
Click to expand...
As of today, the highest enlisted rank in the US Army is a staff sergeant (E6), and the active duty pay steps max out at 8 years. That salary right now is $51,030 per year and obviously includes housing.

If that's good enough for people getting deployed around the world and being away from family with no choice to still pay their bills, it's good enough for a pampered job with security details, playing dress up to go vote on bills.
 
CP87 said:
I know someone who is a former state senator, and just recently retired from his regular job and now works as a lobbyist. Sounds like an interesting gig...
Click to expand...
And his votes while in the state senate were 100% influenced by that lobby.
 
CP87 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'll compromise and say 4 years, no second term.

See how easy that was? We didn't even have to pay for TV commercials slinging mud at each other.
 
Fryowa said:
And his votes while in the state senate were 100% influenced by that lobby.
Click to expand...

I don't think so, in this case. My guess is this is more of an emergent lobby that did not have big influence when he served. Also, it is Iowa State senate, so he is not wielding the kind of power US senators wield. And as a personal acquaintance I know quite well, he seems like the epitome of the kind of person in it for the right reasons. But of course, I am biased.
 
CP87 said:
I know someone who is a former state senator, and just recently retired from his regular job and now works as a lobbyist. Sounds like an interesting gig, and they can play a role in educating congress on things the legislators just don't know much about. But you are right, it is a system rife for corruption, and it furthers the whole oligarchy thing (you and I cannot afford lobbyists to represent our interests).

It seems like trying to outlaw lobbyists would be like trying to get money out of college sports...it sounds good, but it cannot actually be accomplished. If it was outlawed above board, it would just move below board.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's a bit of a pipe dream. The other problem is how do you define "lobbyist?" Joe Schmo, who works in some capacity for said industry, could present himself as just some guy who wants to be available to answer questions about a product. A lot of potential gray area there.

At the very least, regulations could be imposed on receiving direct or indirect items of monetary value from lobbyists. It's already been instituted in healthcare. Providers can no longer receive trips, hotel stays, etc., while attending meetings. Representatives aren't even allowed to drop off pens at offices anymore.
 
#1DieHardHawk said:
At the very least, regulations could be imposed on receiving direct or indirect items of monetary value from lobbyists. It's already been instituted in healthcare. Providers can no longer receive trips, hotel stays, etc., while attending meetings. Representatives aren't even allowed to drop off pens at offices anymore.
Click to expand...
Still doesn't stop a bag of cash from being dropped off at your sister's mailbox in Tupelo, MS. There's no real way to stop it, but 10 years of public audits and tax returns after leaving would scare off the worst offenders. Odds are if they're sketchy (or desperate) enough to take/need bribe money...let's call it what it is...they're sketchy enough that there's other dealings in their personal lives they don't want public for 10 years.
 
CP87 said:
Now consent to my ranked-choice voting idea, and we have a plan!
Click to expand...
Funny you mention that, I watched an unbelievably good vid on that a few weeks ago.

If you're smart enough to be a college prof you'll appreciate the subject being given such an academic yet entertaining breakdown here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf7ws2DF-zk&t=925s&ab_channel=Veritasium

Ranked voting has a lot of compelling arguments, but also a lot of non-compelling ones. Just like anything in life.

If you watch the whole thing, let me know and I'd be happy to hear and discuss what you think. It's 23 minutes well-spent in my opinion because there are no persuasion attempts being made. I'm an amateur intellectually though so take it easy on me.
 
You could also put in a clause where you are allowed one more term if you have a 75% approval rating. Obviously the way they determine the approval rating would have to be concrete. But if someone is doing a really good job, it's kinda counter-productive to kick them out. It would also incentivize doing a good job. You would still have to kick them out after another term or it will eventually get abused and corrupted.
 
Fryowa said:
Funny you mention that, I watched an unbelievably good vid on that a few weeks ago.

If you're smart enough to be a college prof you'll appreciate the subject being given such an academic yet entertaining breakdown here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qf7ws2DF-zk&t=925s&ab_channel=Veritasium

Ranked voting has a lot of compelling arguments, but also a lot of non-compelling ones. Just like anything in life.

If you watch the whole thing, let me know and I'd be happy to hear and discuss what you think. It's 23 minutes well-spent in my opinion because there are no persuasion attempts being made. I'm an amateur intellectually though so take it easy on me.
Click to expand...

I have heard some of the pros and cons, but I am far from an expert. Thanks for sharing the vid, I look forward to giving it a watch when I have some time! As I said before, I am kind of at the point where I think ANYTHING has to be better than what we have. I will give some feedback when I watch the video, I am sure I will learn some things.
 
Not to be too far off track, but I really think we need restored faith in media for any of this to work. Right now, we have absolutely no way to reach agreement on what is true. That has always been an issue for gray-area stuff, but right now it doesn't seem like we can even agree on what color the sky is. No idea how that problem gets fixed, but I think that underlies a lot of the other problems. If we all had greater agreement on what is true, it would be a lot harder for politicians to divide and conquer us.
 
Fryowa said:
Still doesn't stop a bag of cash from being dropped off at your sister's mailbox in Tupelo, MS. There's no real way to stop it, but 10 years of public audits and tax returns after leaving would scare off the worst offenders. Odds are if they're sketchy (or desperate) enough to take/need bribe money...let's call it what it is...they're sketchy enough that there's other dealings in their personal lives they don't want public for 10 years.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no restriction is fail-safe, but enough paranoia can be instilled to allow just a few to be on the take at their own jeopardy.
 
CP87 said:
Not to be too far off track, but I really think we need restored faith in media for any of this to work. Right now, we have absolutely no way to reach agreement on what is true. That has always been an issue for gray-area stuff, but right now it doesn't seem like we can even agree on what color the sky is. No idea how that problem gets fixed, but I think that underlies a lot of the other problems. If we all had greater agreement on what is true, it would be a lot harder for politicians to divide and conquer us.
Click to expand...


Confirmation Bias

We are all guilty of it. We seek out information that confirms what we already believe to be true. It is human nature. The Pollyanna-ish world of the 1960s, that you are clamoring for, isn’t coming back.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top