PoliTalker (05-26-2020)
Greetings PoliTalker, let me begin by saying that I do agree with you that the Constitution is beautiful in its own right. Proof of this is that it is one of the only democratic systems which has withstood the test of time. The problem, however, is that over the years certain parts of it (like the electoral system) have become increasingly corrupt. The Constitution was not created with political parties or corporate entities in mind. George Washington warned us many times that the creation of political parties would only lead to a divided government—something which is clearly evident today. The Constitution works, but political parties are deliberately trying to destroy it. Sovereignty addresses this issue by demanding the dissolution of all political parties and by creating a system that will ensure politicians will be held accountable for their actions.
PoliTalker (05-26-2020)
Hello Sovereigntist,
It all sounds fine and well but it is essentially a pipe dream. It relies upon people with common sense recognizing the problem and then falling mostly into agreement on some basic concepts. I don't see that happening. The party divisions will refuse to see anything which is not cast in the light of the party power struggle.
The way to deal with the corruption is to deal with the corruption.
That is already in progress. It is a process which is time-honored, but it takes time. It is not a solution which can simply be agreed upon and enacted overnight, but something which practically changes the system from within the system. It has to happen slowly but surely.
It can be laid out in simple terms but to be completed, it must wait for people to be exposed to it and let it sink in that this idea preserves the party power struggle but sets new rules which prevent corruption. Many in both parties like the corruption. They will be reluctant to give it up. But they will because of a simple fact: That fact is this idea forces them to take a public position on corruption itself. Are they for corruption or against it? Since neither party, nor any individual within eaither party wishes to take a public position in favor of corruption, they will not fight this one proposal, which is non-partisan.
Here it is:
Anti-Corruption Act
Last edited by PoliTalker; 05-26-2020 at 06:00 AM.
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
How to fix corruption:
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
the concept of any human institution being totally pure is a dangerous lie.
schemes like this are just the upper echelons of the hidden hand betraying their cultivated bourgeoisie, and reinstating their feudalism.
surveillance state will make their dominion absolute.
this is the book within the the book from 1984.
don't fall for this horseshit.
Bookmarks