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?
Trump supporters, how do you square this?
- Thread starter CP87
- Start date
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?
Fryowa
Administrator
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.
Fryowa
Administrator
And his votes while in the state senate were 100% influenced by that lobby.
Fryowa
Administrator
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.
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.
Now consent to my ranked-choice voting idea, and we have a plan!
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
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.
Fryowa
Administrator
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.
Fryowa
Administrator
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.
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.
Oblong?!
#1DieHardHawk
Well-Known Member
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.
trj
Well-Known Member
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:
thedukeofearl
Well-Known Member
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
There is no clamoring, and I am not wishing for the 60s. Through the 1980s, we had reasonable confidence in the broadcast news as an independent arbirter of what is true:
Republicans have been waging a war on the media since the McCarthy days, with escalations by Nixon/Agnew, and most recently Trump. They had a point in that the free press was envisioned as a check against unrestrained government power, and so it has always had a liberal bent.
The combined effect of Reagan's suspension of the Fairness Doctrine and the emergence of cable news meant that people could do exactly what you are describing, find the news that best conforms to what they already believe (the Fairness Doctrine only applied to broadcast news, and as such, it would have been meaningless in today's media landscape). The internet and the rapid ability to disseminate mis- and disinformation via social Mmdia have greatly accelerated the problem within the last 2 decades.
Emergence of new communication technologies (e.g. printing press, radio, television) have always led to social disruption, so this is not new or unexpected. But the rapid emergence of cable news -> internet -> social media (all within 3 decades) has been a lot. As a civilization, we have figured out previous new technologies, I think we will also find a way to sort through all of the intentional distortions and again find agreement on truth. We will still differ in opinion, we will still argue over areas where the truth is disputable, and there will always be a fringe that simply wants to believe in conspiracies. But that conspiratorial thinking will return to the fringes (it is now mainstream), and most of civilization will again know and appreciate the relevant facts informing a topic. I don't know how we will get there, but collectively we will figure it out.
Legally, he probably does not bear responsibility for the riot, he has always been a master of plausible deniability ("I said peacefully and patriotically!"). He is also a master at talking out of both sides of his mouth, telling one side what he wants them to here, while also throwing in other conflicting statements to create said deniability. The "very fine people on both sides" comment, which you also describe as a hoax, is a good example, as is, "Stand back and stand by."
But morally, he absolutely bears responsibility. The only reason his followers suspected shenanigans is because he told them he was cheated, over and over and over. To my earlier point about agreement on what is true, there is absolutely no evidence that anything untoward went down. If there had been evidence, it would have been presented. The best he could come up with was procedural stuff (changes in voting process without state legislative approval), which went down in both red states and blue states because of COVID. These challenges were generally thrown out because they were not raised in a timely manner (objections were made after results tallied, even though procedures were put into place months prior) and the remedies requested were extreme and unconstitutional (throwing out the votes from entire precincts, generally from large, urban areas).
So, he lied about the election being rigged, he invited people to DC for a "wild" rally, he told them to march down the capitol to protest, and he primed them by telling them "if you don't fight like Hell, you're not going to have a country anymore"...while out of the other side of his mouth saying "peacefully and patriotically" somewhere along the way for plausible deniability.
Then, when they started rioting, he stoked the situation by refusing to condemn it immediately. Even after he knew windows were being kicked in, explosions were reported on the Capitol steps, and Capitol Police were being assaulted, he sent his "Mike Pence didn't have the courage" tweet that escalated matters. He sent another 15 minutes later that included "stay peaceful!" and another 35 minutes after that with "...remain peaceful. No violence!". Again, he is good at the plausible deniability thing. When he finally released a video message over and hour later, he repeated the lies about the election being stolen and the other side being "so bad and so evil" while asking his supporters to go home in peace (again, talking out of both sides of his mouth). While he was recording this, some of the most intense skirmishes were still taking place at the Capitol.
None of the information above is in dispute, these are matters of fact (my interpretation of Trump talking out of both sides of his mouth is, of course, my opinion). At no point on this day did Trump live up to the moral expectations of his office, whether he is legally liable or not.
I am sure you will respond with, "But Ray Epps!" While there is no hard evidence for this conspiracy theory, even if we assumed it was true, it would not exculpt Trump in any way from his actions. So please, if you reply, focus on why you believe Trump's actions on that day were appropriate for the office of the President, not anything related to a conspiracy theory that FBI agents instigated the riot.