Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37

Thread: The Strategy To End Corruption In Congress

  1. #16 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    47,221
    Thanks
    2,826
    Thanked 5,808 Times in 4,620 Posts
    Groans
    12
    Groaned 322 Times in 300 Posts

    Default

    we live in complete state capture.
    Morality is a set of attitudes and behaviors which facilitate voluntary, cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships. --AssHatZombie

    Obamagate is Operation Crossfire Hurricane

    internationalist fascism: the belief that the interests of multinational corporations should be the sole focus of all national trade policies.

    CRT Segregationists of the left https://www.racialequitytools.org/re...ffinity-groups

  2. #17 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    10,227
    Thanks
    1,401
    Thanked 3,803 Times in 2,746 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 666 Times in 627 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    The best strategy is Don't vote! It only encourages them! What if they held an election and nobody showed up to vote in it?
    That is exactly what most non-Republicans have always done. Leave the election up to hopes and dreams and everybody else to go and vote, I suppose

    But then, DING! DING! The Democrats and all other non-Republicans figured out that the only way to keep a Republican- that went off the rails like Trump from being the president again- WAS TO GET UP OFF OF THEIR ASSES AND GO VOTE- or at least, mail in their votes!

    Please get this message to Donald Trump!
    Last edited by Geeko Sportivo; 07-05-2021 at 11:18 AM.

  3. #18 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,545
    Thanks
    19,361
    Thanked 14,981 Times in 10,290 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,254 Times in 4,558 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Geeko Sportivo,

    Quote Originally Posted by Geeko Sportivo View Post
    Best Strategy- VOTE DEMOCRAT!

    But, that's always the best strategy for everything!
    I would disagree that one party is always better than the other, but I do believe that in these current times the Democratic Party is absolutely THE party that Promotes The General Welfare better.

    That's why I vote Democrat.

    And really: when more people are thriving and have money to spend, the economy is going to do better.

    The Republican Party is the party that currently promotes the oligarchy and big money corporate power.

    I can't support that.

    But the problem is that: big big money works to keep the two sides at each other's throats. And it's not very hard to do.

    I watched a documentary called: "Hacking Your Mind" on PBS.

    It's a three-part series. Each of the episodes is an hour long. The one I linked above is the 2nd of the series. It focuses on why we get into a we/they rut and become so firmly stuck in it. This episode begins with a scene that went viral on U Tube, where a Biden supporter is surrounded by Trump supporters and, though there is thankfully no violence, there is also no productive communication. The people in the scene have been reduced to absurdly screaming and glaring at one another.

    The documentary explores how people get to the point that they act so ridiculously. I found it quite fascinating. We humans appear to be totally instinctive about falling into a we/they rut where individuals identify with one group or another, and find individuals of opposing groups to be 'horrible people.'

    That effect affects our politics greatly. As we all know here at JPP, in a Democracy we have to compromise with the other side, but we can't do that because we can't even agree on what the basic facts are, much less what the best thing to do about our challenges might be.

    Science is studying why we cannot agree. It appears to be instinctive. The very same dynamic is present in other animals. Many animals including humans, divide themselves into groups which oppose one another, sometimes to death.

    There is an interesting scientific experiment described at timestamp 3:13 of the linked video above. It only lasts a few minutes, but it says a lot about why there is this we/they thing about each side thinking they are the good side and the other is bad:

    Children are randomly divided into two groups merely be the color of the shirts they wear.

    Very quickly, each group comes up with reasons why their group is good and the other group is bad.

    Without any actual facts to go on, the mind creates possibilities and then, with nothing further to go on, begins to believe these assumptions are facts. More assumptions are created to support the original ones, which solidifies the often erroneous beliefs.

    These dynamics are naturally occurring.

    Logically, this implies that the only way to rise above this trap is for people to be far better educated so they are aware of all of this and better able to overcome it.

    That's what we need to get our nation unstuck from our current dilemma and inability to make good decisions as a Democratic Republic.

    We've lost the ability to have the give and take necessary for meaningful and functional compromise.
    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.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    Geeko Sportivo (07-24-2021)

  5. #19 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    13,732
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 6,539 Times in 4,696 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 240 Times in 219 Posts

    Default

    The problem today is one party has become Leftist. Things worked when both parties weren't Leftist. They could be Liberal, Conservative, middle-of-the-road, and it wasn't a problem. The political spectrum outside of the Left could work together and come to compromises. That isn't how the Left rolls. For them it's What's ours is ours, what's yours is negotable. It's My way or the highway. There is no compromising with the Left.

    I've seen it repeatedly over my lifetime. The Left wants something politically. They make a public show of wanting a 'democratic vote' on it. They'll tell you they will honor the results of that vote. Then, when the vote smacks down their proposal, votes it out, won't let it happen, their tune changes to one of The public doesn't know what the hell's good for them! We're not going to stop pushing for this until we get it! Fuck that vote! The voters were morons! This is when the Left now tries to use the legal system to get their way, or they seek alternate means to get around having to have their proposal voted into law. They stack the courts, shop judges, use bureaucratic subterfuge, and refuse to compromise in any way.

    Look at gay marriage for example. They did the above EXACTLY. In 35 states they put gay marriage on the ballot. In 35 states voters voted it down. Hell, in California a state constitutional amendment was passed by nearly 60% of the vote to make gay marriage illegal.
    What'd the Left do in response? They went to court, shopped judges, and sued to get gay marriage bans overturned. The entirety of this now in law was made up by a relative handful of judges across the US through the courts.
    Didn't matter one iota to the Left that their proposal was publicly unpopular. They wanted what they wanted and nobody was going to stop them. No compromise. No respecting the will of the people. They rammed what they and they alone wanted down everybody's throat.
    Try and have a discussion about this topic now with a Leftist. Hell, I'm betting in short order here on this thread I'll get massive pushback from the Lefties on the board about what I just posted. There will be no rational discussion. Instead, it'll be The courts decided and that's that! STFU you troll! No civil discourse with the Left. Either you are with them or you go to the gulag.

  6. #20 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    13,555
    Thanks
    559
    Thanked 3,275 Times in 2,659 Posts
    Groans
    203
    Groaned 109 Times in 107 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    Public funding of elections: Highly unpopular and usually struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme court.
    I'm not familiar with any public funding laws ruled unconstitutional (could you provide information)?

    As a matter of fact, we have had public funding of presidential nominations and elections since 1976. All candidates accepted public funding for the general election until Obama. Now, candidates do not use it because it limits spending too much and candidates can raise and spend much more if they do not accept the funding.

    I agree most of these measures would accomplish little. The most powerful group in the U. S. (AARP) lobbies Congress but is a non-profit and cannot give campaign contributions.

    Some states have term limits for legislators and the result has been power shifting to lobbyists, staff, and the executive branch because of inexperienced legislators.

    Fiddling with mechanics does not change human nature.

    What do the American people want that politicians are not giving them? The public seems very split about what they want.

    Most laws regulating campaign finance, etc. do not work because they are based on false assumptions.

  7. #21 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,545
    Thanks
    19,361
    Thanked 14,981 Times in 10,290 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,254 Times in 4,558 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello T. A. Gardner,

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    The problem today is one party has become Leftist. Things worked when both parties weren't Leftist. They could be Liberal, Conservative, middle-of-the-road, and it wasn't a problem. The political spectrum outside of the Left could work together and come to compromises. That isn't how the Left rolls. For them it's What's ours is ours, what's yours is negotable. It's My way or the highway. There is no compromising with the Left.

    I've seen it repeatedly over my lifetime. The Left wants something politically. They make a public show of wanting a 'democratic vote' on it. They'll tell you they will honor the results of that vote. Then, when the vote smacks down their proposal, votes it out, won't let it happen, their tune changes to one of The public doesn't know what the hell's good for them! We're not going to stop pushing for this until we get it! Fuck that vote! The voters were morons! This is when the Left now tries to use the legal system to get their way, or they seek alternate means to get around having to have their proposal voted into law. They stack the courts, shop judges, use bureaucratic subterfuge, and refuse to compromise in any way.

    Look at gay marriage for example. They did the above EXACTLY. In 35 states they put gay marriage on the ballot. In 35 states voters voted it down. Hell, in California a state constitutional amendment was passed by nearly 60% of the vote to make gay marriage illegal.
    What'd the Left do in response? They went to court, shopped judges, and sued to get gay marriage bans overturned. The entirety of this now in law was made up by a relative handful of judges across the US through the courts.
    Didn't matter one iota to the Left that their proposal was publicly unpopular. They wanted what they wanted and nobody was going to stop them. No compromise. No respecting the will of the people. They rammed what they and they alone wanted down everybody's throat.
    Try and have a discussion about this topic now with a Leftist. Hell, I'm betting in short order here on this thread I'll get massive pushback from the Lefties on the board about what I just posted. There will be no rational discussion. Instead, it'll be The courts decided and that's that! STFU you troll! No civil discourse with the Left. Either you are with them or you go to the gulag.
    The will of the people strongly supports gay marriage.

    A Record Number Of Americans, Including Republicans, Now Support Same-Sex Marriage

    If you want civil discourse from 'the left' or 'the right' you will probably be disappointed. It is not possible to conduct a conversation with 150 million people. If you want civil discourse, you'll have to be very selective in who you talk to.

    I'm all about civil discourse. That's why I come here. But I have to be very selective in finding it. There is not one single extremist on either side that I can talk to here. Extremists do not seem to be very respectful of others. I always end up conversing with people who are somewhere in between the extreme left or right. Simply because I wish to be respectful and be respected in return.

    I don't mind having my ideas attacked. And I'll freely admit it when I've gotten something wrong and been set right. You've done that for me yourself, and I appreciate it. I would rather admit a mistake and then get something right than to stand up for something which is not true. But when people are simply attacking me? I take it as a sign that that is what they will continue to do. Since I don't want that I cut them off. After all, they have already indicated they think it's OK to do that.

    Now, you've chosen a very poor example to support your dubious contention about 'the left' all behaving a certain way. Gay marriage is widely popular. And not just with the left.

    And I doubt you'll be able to find anything to support your contention. I believe it is incorrect. I actually find many on the right AND on the left who act like that. Anyone who wants to cherry-pick the worst behavior of the opposite side and falsely apply it to everyone on that side has all the material they need to work with.

    But that doesn't make it reasonable to do that.

    The extremes have diverged, no doubt of it.

    It is totally not true that has only happened on one side.

    McConnell bent the Senate rules over backward to stack the SCOTUS. He doesn't mind being a total hypocrite to get what he wants.

    The real problem is the two sides cannot agree on the facts because they don't get their information from the same place.

    We have people like Alex Jones carrying on like he's furnishing facts, like he is presenting news, but then when he gets hauled into court his lawyer argues that he cannot be held responsible for what he says, that he is an actor creating entertainment.

    Alex Jones is really more dangerous to the public than Orson Welles infamous radio broadcast of HG Wells' "War Of The Worlds" in 1938, which caused widespread panic. The main difference being that Orson Welles simply wanted to create entertainment and never expected that people would take the broadcast seriously since he had announced a disclaimer in the beginning and at the end of his presentation. Alex Jones does the same thing, on purpose, because he capitalizes on it and gets incredibly rich pushing totally fake news.
    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.

  8. #22 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,545
    Thanks
    19,361
    Thanked 14,981 Times in 10,290 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,254 Times in 4,558 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Flash,

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    I'm not familiar with any public funding laws ruled unconstitutional (could you provide information)?

    As a matter of fact, we have had public funding of presidential nominations and elections since 1976. All candidates accepted public funding for the general election until Obama. Now, candidates do not use it because it limits spending too much and candidates can raise and spend much more if they do not accept the funding.

    I agree most of these measures would accomplish little. The most powerful group in the U. S. (AARP) lobbies Congress but is a non-profit and cannot give campaign contributions.

    Some states have term limits for legislators and the result has been power shifting to lobbyists, staff, and the executive branch because of inexperienced legislators.

    Fiddling with mechanics does not change human nature.

    What do the American people want that politicians are not giving them? The public seems very split about what they want.

    Most laws regulating campaign finance, etc. do not work because they are based on false assumptions.
    Can we agree that legal corruption makes Congress ineffective and tainted?

    And then I suppose the only thing we really disagree about is that I think something can actually be done about it and you think it's hopeless so we should not even try?

    I would ask if you have ever considered the macroscopic view of this and wondered how big change such as women's suffrage ever came about.

    That too seemed hopeless to many.

    And change did not come from the powerful.

    It came from the people, and it took many many years.

    It happened from the bottom up.

    Just like this proposal.
    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.

  9. #23 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    9,345
    Thanks
    969
    Thanked 3,744 Times in 2,692 Posts
    Groans
    18
    Groaned 485 Times in 462 Posts

    Default

    Corruption is what goody-two-shoes Pollyannas talk about.

    It's not good, we agree. We can do what we can---NEVER including term limits. That's what elections are for.
    We can better regulate the lobbyists.

    But compared to bad policy, it's barely a paper cut. Less than that.

    Corruption costs us millions.

    Bad policy costs us billions.

    A sticky-fingered politician who votes correctly on the floor of congress
    is worth ten times more than an honest idiot who votes incorrectly in terms of policy.

    It should be obvious, but few people see it.
    Patriotism is the last refuge of a a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson, 1775
    Religion....is the opiate of the people. Karl Marx, 1848

  10. #24 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    13,555
    Thanks
    559
    Thanked 3,275 Times in 2,659 Posts
    Groans
    203
    Groaned 109 Times in 107 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Flash,

    Can we agree that legal corruption makes Congress ineffective and tainted?
    Yes, but I don't think that controls American politics. If campaign contributions determine how members of Congress vote they should all be voting the same way based on who gives them the most money. If you assume their primary motivation is getting reelected, then votes and not campaign contributions is their goal. Unless campaign contributions buy our vote then it doesn't matter how much they spend.

    I think you are going to vote (almost) straight Democratic regardless of how much the Republicans spend--so, the contributions are not buying your vote or anyone else who will admit it. So, I don't agree that the problem is that contributions buy votes in most cases. Can you tell me which member of Congress took money to vote a certain way? If not, it is just an oft-repeated cynical view based on those who think money is the main motivation for most people.

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    And then I suppose the only thing we really disagree about is that I think something can actually be done about it and you think it's hopeless so we should not even try?

    I would ask if you have ever considered the macroscopic view of this and wondered how big change such as women's suffrage ever came about.

    That too seemed hopeless to many.

    And change did not come from the powerful.

    It came from the people, and it took many many years.

    It happened from the bottom up.

    Just like this proposal.
    I don't think nothing can be done--I just don't think tweaking the system is the answer. I think we already have the means to accomplish our goals if we just choose to use them.

    Take your example of the 19th Amendment. It took a movement of the people, a little drama, and persistence (much like civil rights). But, it was the powerful that made the change happen because public actions generated enough support in Congress and the states to propose the amendment.

    In your interpretation the 19th only passed Congress because lobbyists gave members money to vote for its passage. Or, is it only corruption when you don't like the legislation? The solution is there--get people to write their members to support the legislation they want. If the members vote against their wishes vote against them at election time (term limits). Most people cannot name their U. S. Representative much less identify how he voted on any legislation. Structural changes cannot substitute for public action.

    To some extent, we can see that action today with an increased voter turnout (20 million) in 2020 and polarized electorate. Voters are very intense in their beliefs. However, we can obviously see the problems with intense voter interest.

  11. #25 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    36,484
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 15,865 Times in 11,058 Posts
    Groans
    4,339
    Groaned 3,584 Times in 3,332 Posts

    Default

    Step one: public funding of political campaigns with zero outside money. no PACs. Politicians access that same money and get the same campaign time on TV.
    After a while, we would have more than 2 parties. It is like when Reagan killed the "equal time provisions". It was not that Dems got answer time when a Red got time, but so did Libertarians, Greens, and other parties. I remember hearing other opinions and sometimes they made a lot of sense. You saw what the other candidates looked like and what they sounded like.
    End gerrymandering. It distorts and cheats. It should not be allowed. There is no state that does not have a college with a math department that can do fair districting.
    The president is the person who got the most votes. The EC is an anachronism that is harmful.
    Lobbyists do more than give money. They write the bills and the politicians slip them into a big bill where it will not be noticed.
    We have strict term limits, If you do not like your rep, vote him out. We all want someone else's rep to leave, but we keep voting ours back in.
    Last edited by Nordberg; 07-24-2021 at 10:16 PM.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Nordberg For This Post:

    PoliTalker (07-26-2021)

  13. #26 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,545
    Thanks
    19,361
    Thanked 14,981 Times in 10,290 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,254 Times in 4,558 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Flash,

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Yes, but I don't think that controls American politics. If campaign contributions determine how members of Congress vote they should all be voting the same way based on who gives them the most money. If you assume their primary motivation is getting reelected, then votes and not campaign contributions is their goal. Unless campaign contributions buy our vote then it doesn't matter how much they spend.

    I think you are going to vote (almost) straight Democratic regardless of how much the Republicans spend--so, the contributions are not buying your vote or anyone else who will admit it. So, I don't agree that the problem is that contributions buy votes in most cases. Can you tell me which member of Congress took money to vote a certain way? If not, it is just an oft-repeated cynical view based on those who think money is the main motivation for most people.



    I don't think nothing can be done--I just don't think tweaking the system is the answer. I think we already have the means to accomplish our goals if we just choose to use them.

    Take your example of the 19th Amendment. It took a movement of the people, a little drama, and persistence (much like civil rights). But, it was the powerful that made the change happen because public actions generated enough support in Congress and the states to propose the amendment.

    In your interpretation the 19th only passed Congress because lobbyists gave members money to vote for its passage. Or, is it only corruption when you don't like the legislation? The solution is there--get people to write their members to support the legislation they want. If the members vote against their wishes vote against them at election time (term limits). Most people cannot name their U. S. Representative much less identify how he voted on any legislation. Structural changes cannot substitute for public action.

    To some extent, we can see that action today with an increased voter turnout (20 million) in 2020 and polarized electorate. Voters are very intense in their beliefs. However, we can obviously see the problems with intense voter interest.
    The 19th took way more than 'a little drama' to bring about. And it was not the powerful who did it. It was grass roots.

    Writing to your rep would work if enough people were well informed and actively engaged. But that's not the case. People are too busy living their lives to be well informed. Consequently, writing your rep does essentially nothing at all. The rep won't even read it. The staff will, and a form letter reply may be sent. That's it. There is virtually no communication between the representatives and the represented. You can't have a conversation with your representative unless you have big money. Go ahead. Try to call them up. You can't talk to them. Staff answers or you leave a message.

    You can write a letter. Ask all the questions you want. They will not be answered. Make all the suggestions you wish. They will be ignored.

    But if you have big money you can have lunch with your rep. Then you get their ear. You get a two-way conversation.

    Representatives spend most of their time not doing the work of their job. Their primary function is to raise money. It's insane.

    The American Anti-Corruption Act puts an end to that.

    Politicians are counting on your antipathy.
    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.

  14. #27 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    13,555
    Thanks
    559
    Thanked 3,275 Times in 2,659 Posts
    Groans
    203
    Groaned 109 Times in 107 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Flash,

    The 19th took way more than 'a little drama' to bring about. And it was not the powerful who did it. It was grass roots.

    Writing to your rep would work if enough people were well informed and actively engaged. But that's not the case. People are too busy living their lives to be well informed. Consequently, writing your rep does essentially nothing at all. The rep won't even read it. The staff will, and a form letter reply may be sent. That's it. There is virtually no communication between the representatives and the represented. You can't have a conversation with your representative unless you have big money. Go ahead. Try to call them up. You can't talk to them. Staff answers or you leave a message.

    You can write a letter. Ask all the questions you want. They will not be answered. Make all the suggestions you wish. They will be ignored.

    But if you have big money you can have lunch with your rep. Then you get their ear. You get a two-way conversation.

    Representatives spend most of their time not doing the work of their job. Their primary function is to raise money. It's insane.

    If the public does not have time to be well informed or active, how is the

    The American Anti-Corruption Act puts an end to that.

    Politicians are counting on your antipathy.
    The 19th amendment was somewhat grassroots (mostly elite women) but it took the powerful (Congress and the states) to propose and ratify the Amendment. People were no more informed or engaged when that happened, but public support was largely responsible for it happening (including media attention shaming officials for the hunger strike).

    Go to the House or Senate. Tourists pass through there every day and have meetings with their elected officials. They don't have to have given them contributions or even have voted for them (they don't ask). You are right in that members aren't going to read all the letters from constituents urging their vote for or against something, but their staff keeps track and lets the member know if opinion is strongly favoring one view. They do get form letters but they look "real" if you have ever seen the signature machine that signs the member's name with ink.

    What the staff spends most of their time doing is casework helping constituents with problems involving the bureaucracy--VA benefits, Social Security, disability...These don't anger anybody (unlike congressional votes) and make lifetime supporters of the member.

    If the public does not have time to be well-informed or active, how is the Anti-Corruption Act going to change that? Why are members going to vote more in the interests of their constituents if their constituents don't even know how they vote? Except for spending their time raising money, nothing in the act changes any of the things you are complaining about.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    PoliTalker (07-27-2021)

  16. #28 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,545
    Thanks
    19,361
    Thanked 14,981 Times in 10,290 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,254 Times in 4,558 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Flash,

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    The 19th amendment was somewhat grassroots (mostly elite women) but it took the powerful (Congress and the states) to propose and ratify the Amendment. People were no more informed or engaged when that happened, but public support was largely responsible for it happening (including media attention shaming officials for the hunger strike).

    Go to the House or Senate. Tourists pass through there every day and have meetings with their elected officials. They don't have to have given them contributions or even have voted for them (they don't ask). You are right in that members aren't going to read all the letters from constituents urging their vote for or against something, but their staff keeps track and lets the member know if opinion is strongly favoring one view. They do get form letters but they look "real" if you have ever seen the signature machine that signs the member's name with ink.

    What the staff spends most of their time doing is casework helping constituents with problems involving the bureaucracy--VA benefits, Social Security, disability...These don't anger anybody (unlike congressional votes) and make lifetime supporters of the member.

    If the public does not have time to be well-informed or active, how is the Anti-Corruption Act going to change that? Why are members going to vote more in the interests of their constituents if their constituents don't even know how they vote? Except for spending their time raising money, nothing in the act changes any of the things you are complaining about.
    You raise some valid points. I wish I had all the answers. I believe the AACA will begin to address these issues, but more importantly it will transform Congress for the better. As you know from reading the proposed Act, the strategy is to pass the American Anti Corruption Act at the local level first, which is already happening. (How can it NOT pass? What candidate in their right mind would take a public position in favor of corruption?) The next step is to get it passed at the State level. Then it picks up momentum and popularity when the public realizes it is a non partisan issue for the good of the nation. Then you have pro AACA candidates running in both parties at the national level. Once enough of them are elected it sets the stage for passage at the national level.

    Along the way Congress is transformed into a more responsive body that does nor spend the majority of their efforts raising money.

    Oh, and btw. If you think the staff is spending most of their time helping constituents navigate the bureaucracy, think again. Their primary function is fund raising. The AACA puts an end to that. How that is enforced is unclear. This Act will not totally fix Congress. It is a welcome step in the right direction. More to be taken as time allows.
    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.

  17. #29 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    13,555
    Thanks
    559
    Thanked 3,275 Times in 2,659 Posts
    Groans
    203
    Groaned 109 Times in 107 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Flash,

    Oh, and btw. If you think the staff is spending most of their time helping constituents navigate the bureaucracy, think again. Their primary function is fund raising. The AACA puts an end to that. How that is enforced is unclear. This Act will not totally fix Congress. It is a welcome step in the right direction. More to be taken as time allows.
    Members, not staff, do most of the fundraising. None say they spend most of their time raising money. Staff do spend time on campaign work.

    Based on studies done on Congress: (Members of Congress)
    Key Findings:

    Members focus most of their time on legislative/policy work and on constituent services—not political activities.

    • When in Washington, D.C., Members reported spending their time as follows:
      • 35% on “Legislative/Policy Work”
      • 17% on “Constituent Services Work”
      • 17% on “Political/Campaign Work”
      • 9% on “Press/Media Relations”
      • 9% with “Family/Friends”
      • 7% on “Administrative/Managerial Work”
      • 6% on “Personal Time”

    • When in their congressional districts, Members reported spending their time as follows:
      • 32% on “Constituent Services Work”
      • 18% on “Political/Campaign Work”
      • 14% on “Press/Media Relations”
      • 12% on “Legislative/Policy Work”
      • 9% with “Family/Friends”
      • 8% on “Personal Time”
      • 7% on “Administrative/Managerial Work”



    https://www.congressfoundation.org/p...er-perspective

    https://ethics.house.gov/campaign/ca...ouse-employees

  18. #30 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,545
    Thanks
    19,361
    Thanked 14,981 Times in 10,290 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 5,254 Times in 4,558 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Hello Flash,

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Members, not staff, do most of the fundraising. None say they spend most of their time raising money. Staff do spend time on campaign work.

    Based on studies done on Congress: (Members of Congress)
    Key Findings:

    Members focus most of their time on legislative/policy work and on constituent services—not political activities.

    • When in Washington, D.C., Members reported spending their time as follows:
      • 35% on “Legislative/Policy Work”
      • 17% on “Constituent Services Work”
      • 17% on “Political/Campaign Work”
      • 9% on “Press/Media Relations”
      • 9% with “Family/Friends”
      • 7% on “Administrative/Managerial Work”
      • 6% on “Personal Time”

    • When in their congressional districts, Members reported spending their time as follows:
      • 32% on “Constituent Services Work”
      • 18% on “Political/Campaign Work”
      • 14% on “Press/Media Relations”
      • 12% on “Legislative/Policy Work”
      • 9% with “Family/Friends”
      • 8% on “Personal Time”
      • 7% on “Administrative/Managerial Work”



    https://www.congressfoundation.org/p...er-perspective

    https://ethics.house.gov/campaign/ca...ouse-employees
    That's what they reported they spent their time on?

    I don't believe them.

    That's what they said about themselves. Humans are known to fool themselves.

    About the time spent by staff. If staff can be said to be working on proposed bill with a lobbyist for a huge campaign donor who is dangling further donations, is the staffer really fund-raising?
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Lefty election strategy vs righty strategy
    By Evmetro in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 11-03-2020, 05:14 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-15-2019, 05:24 PM
  3. Replies: 79
    Last Post: 02-28-2019, 11:47 AM
  4. Brit Anti-Corruption police facing corruption charges.
    By moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-22-2018, 07:41 AM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-09-2018, 06:50 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •