NationStates

American Imperial Realm wrote:The U.S. Congress is a bastard organization full of corrupt fools owned by massive corporations. Too beholden to serve the people.

Congress has the lowest approval rating in history. 19%

Let's not get emotional about 200 year old pieces of paper and institutions long since evolved and changed.

It's time to get rid of Congress and empower the executive to fulfill the direct will of the People.

no more petty bureaucracy. It's time to empower the leader and reorganize.

Politics is too inefficient.

I'm good.

Not going to get involved into this directly but the getting rid of Congress will make a HUGE change to the American constitution because there is a reason for having them for a reason. To keep the check-and-balance in place to prevent one from having too much power like Britain did. Not only that, but our founding fathers does have the strict reasons to keeping this power among the three branches in place.

I don't know why you guys are complaining but isn't it the people that got some of the senators in Congress in the first place? Isn't it their faults in the first place? Again, I don't know and I don't want to know about it, cause it's going to cause a heated debate here.

Instead of getting rid of Congress, how about having a poll for the people to get rid of some of the senators so we could get less assholes who knows how to pass laws for the benefits of the country, AND the people.

Remember, the founding fathers made it strict that the people run the country, but apparently the government failed to see that because they're all assholes.

Dude, everytime I see you I forget American Fascism exists, and I'm eternally perplexed by it

Empire of Narnia wrote:Term Limits for Congress would solve a lot of it.

Nah.

Empire of Narnia wrote:Term Limits for Congress would solve a lot of it.

Where do you get this kind of nonsensical idea?

What it would do is lead to a less qualified workforce.

We don't call for term-limits on doctors, do we?

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Empire of Narnia wrote:Term Limits for Congress would solve a lot of it.

Where do you get this kind of nonsensical idea?

What it would do is lead to a less qualified workforce.

We don't call for term-limits on doctors, do we?

Plus it tells the people "you don't get to decide when your representative stays or goes". People should at the very least be allowed to have a consistent representative to represent them, and decide WHEN that person is no longer representative of them. They shouldn't be forced to have their representative taken away from them, and be forced to find a new one.

Noraika wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Where do you get this kind of nonsensical idea?

What it would do is lead to a less qualified workforce.

We don't call for term-limits on doctors, do we?

Plus it tells the people "you don't get to decide when your representative stays or goes". People should at the very least be allowed to have a consistent representative to represent them, and decide WHEN that person is no longer representative of them. They shouldn't be forced to have their representative taken away from them, and be forced to find a new one.

I mean... 'term limits' can be useful if they are part of something. I've said before, I'm quite an advocate for sortition, and that kinda carries an implication of 'term limits' built in... but 'term limits' on their own are just a nonsense.

To be honest, I've been somewhat trying to get to the root of where this whole 'term limit' idea is coming from. It's so nonsensical, and so off-the-wall, it must all be coming from a common source. It's pretty much impossible that people are simultaneously and IN ISOLATION coming up with the idea that what is wrong with politics is that too many people are competent and experienced.

But, I agree with you - in our current model, term limits imposed externally make no sense. If we're going to do it this way, we're better off without term limits than we would be with.

Thermodolia wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
The problem is that the voting population tends to consist of poorly qualified individuals

Good thing the only qualification needed for voting is age.

and that's part of the problem

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:It's time to start voting people out of Congress, not to get rid of it.

Congress as a whole needs to go though. At this point its just a corrupted edifice. We need to rewrite the whole code.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:It's time to start voting people out of Congress, not to get rid of it.

Congress as a whole needs to go though. At this point its just a corrupted edifice. We need to rewrite the whole code.

Not just that, but if you get rid of the corrupt fucks in office now, they'll just be replaced with other corrupt fucks.

Like what happens when one dies or loses an election.

American Imperial Realm wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Congress as a whole needs to go though. At this point its just a corrupted edifice. We need to rewrite the whole code.

Not just that, but if you get rid of the corrupt fucks in office now, they'll just be replaced with other corrupt fucks.

Like what happens when one dies or loses an election.

People declining to turn over supreme power to a racist strongman isn't corruption.

Ifreann wrote:

American Imperial Realm wrote:
Not just that, but if you get rid of the corrupt fucks in office now, they'll just be replaced with other corrupt fucks.

Like what happens when one dies or loses an election.

People declining to turn over supreme power to a racist strongman isn't corruption.

What do you care? Aren't you British?

In any case, their corruption is self-evident. They've fucked over the people legislatively multiple times for financial gain.

For example, why is America the only industrialized country with no universal healthcare?

Why is 'climate change denial' a thing? Why do we give subsidies to American oil companies that make billions of dollars?

Because of corruption, that's why. Meanwhile corporations pour billions into political 'super pacs'. This whole system is rotten and must be torn down. We need a party with a racist strongman at the helm.

Why the fuck should we have all these foreigners in our country? 9/11 wasn't committed by white folks. Crime rates are much higher in non-white communities. I'm willing to give a pass to the Asians because they actually tend to be good citizens.

Look at Japan, a homogenous society. They're far better off than we are in many metrics, because they don't permit race mixing.

You're going about this all wrong. Congress is just part of the problem. We must also seize the means of production, usurp the president, and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Seriously though, Trump is part of the problem. In fact, he highlights everything wrong with modern politics.

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:It's time to start voting people out of Congress, not to get rid of it.

No it's not. Two more years, guy.

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:You're going about this all wrong. Congress is just part of the problem. We must also seize the means of production, usurp the president, and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Seriously though, Trump is part of the problem. In fact, he highlights everything wrong with modern politics.

The Greater Ohio Valley wrote:It's time to start voting people out of Congress, not to get rid of it.

No it's not. Two more years, guy.

Anything is better than the system we have now.

the people are a mob, they do not think as one. The Government is not strong enough to control them, yet.

My interaction and conversation with the average voter is a great argument against democracy. apathetic, ignorant and easily manipulated, the mob must not rule.

"Let's get rid of some corrupt people and put everything in the hands of one corrupt person"

Nah, we have checks and balances for a reason. So some guy can't get his corrupt agenda done very easily.

American Imperial Realm wrote:

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:You're going about this all wrong. Congress is just part of the problem. We must also seize the means of production, usurp the president, and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Seriously though, Trump is part of the problem. In fact, he highlights everything wrong with modern politics.

No it's not. Two more years, guy.

Anything is better than the system we have now.

the people are a mob, they do not think as one. The Government is not strong enough to control them, yet.

My interaction and conversation with the average voter is a great argument against democracy. apathetic, ignorant and easily manipulated, the mob must not rule.

Yeah man, let the corrupt members of government have more control over the people. And then make them hold no responsibility to the people.

Community Values wrote:"Let's get rid of some corrupt people and put everything in the hands of one corrupt person"

Nah, we have checks and balances for a reason. So some guy can't get his corrupt agenda done very easily.

Hitler wasn't corrupt. Neither was stalin. Both did great things for their nation.

American Imperial Realm wrote:

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:You're going about this all wrong. Congress is just part of the problem. We must also seize the means of production, usurp the president, and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Seriously though, Trump is part of the problem. In fact, he highlights everything wrong with modern politics.

No it's not. Two more years, guy.

Anything is better than the system we have now.

the people are a mob, they do not think as one. The Government is not strong enough to control them, yet.

My interaction and conversation with the average voter is a great argument against democracy. apathetic, ignorant and easily manipulated, the mob must not rule.

I'm going to have to agree with you on your assessment of the average voter. They are hardly qualified to make decisions. I wouldn't even trust them to take care of my laundry routine.

American Imperial Realm wrote:

The Empire of Pretantia wrote:You're going about this all wrong. Congress is just part of the problem. We must also seize the means of production, usurp the president, and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Seriously though, Trump is part of the problem. In fact, he highlights everything wrong with modern politics.

No it's not. Two more years, guy.

Anything is better than the system we have now.

Including anarcho-capitalism?

the people are a mob, they do not think as one. The Government is not strong enough to control them, yet.

No, but they're charismatic enough.

My interaction and conversation with the average voter is a great argument against democracy. apathetic, ignorant and easily manipulated, the mob must not rule.

My interaction with you is enough to give me a hernia.

No. Fuck no. Absolutely positively unreservedly fucking no.

American Imperial Realm wrote:

Community Values wrote:"Let's get rid of some corrupt people and put everything in the hands of one corrupt person"

Nah, we have checks and balances for a reason. So some guy can't get his corrupt agenda done very easily.

Hitler wasn't corrupt. Neither was stalin. Both did great things for their nation.

Hitler led his country to be divided for 50 years, and Stalin starved his own people. "Great things for their nations" my ass.

American Imperial Realm wrote:

Ifreann wrote:People declining to turn over supreme power to a racist strongman isn't corruption.

What do you care? Aren't you British?

No.

In any case, their corruption is self-evident. They've fucked over the people legislatively multiple times for financial gain.

For example, why is America the only industrialized country with no universal healthcare?

Why is 'climate change denial' a thing? Why do we give subsidies to American oil companies that make billions of dollars?

Because of corruption, that's why.

Mmm, very stirring. And then one remembers that you also want to toss out the people who vote against those things. And, in fact, the whole institution, not just corrupt individuals. Because ultimately your problem isn't Congress critters being corrupt, it's that the US is a representative democracy rather than a racist totalitarian dictatorship.

American Imperial Realm wrote:Anything is better than the system we have now.

Really? A regime that engages in mass genocide is better than what we have now? Total anarchy is better than what we have now? I highly doubt you believe that.

Wallenburg wrote:

American Imperial Realm wrote:Anything is better than the system we have now.

Really? A regime that engages in mass genocide is better than what we have now? Total anarchy is better than what we have now? I highly doubt you believe that.

Anarchy? I'd definitely consider it.

Ifreann wrote:

American Imperial Realm wrote:
What do you care? Aren't you British?

No.

In any case, their corruption is self-evident. They've fucked over the people legislatively multiple times for financial gain.

For example, why is America the only industrialized country with no universal healthcare?

Why is 'climate change denial' a thing? Why do we give subsidies to American oil companies that make billions of dollars?

Because of corruption, that's why.

Mmm, very stirring. And then one remembers that you also want to toss out the people who vote against those things. And, in fact, the whole institution, not just corrupt individuals. Because ultimately your problem isn't Congress critters being corrupt, it's that the US is a representative democracy rather than a racist totalitarian dictatorship.

I'd say they're one in the same. They're both corrupt, and not a racist single-party state.

Community Values wrote:

American Imperial Realm wrote:
Hitler wasn't corrupt. Neither was stalin. Both did great things for their nation.

Hitler led his country to be divided for 50 years, and Stalin starved his own people. "Great things for their nations" my ass.

Hitler's war goals were unrealistic and losing a war has less to do with ideology and more to do with the military strategic reality of Germany and her resources or lack thereof.

Stalin starved his own people, but he went from agrarian country to industralized country in a decade.

I think this video is very instructive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

American Imperial Realm wrote:

Community Values wrote:
Hitler led his country to be divided for 50 years, and Stalin starved his own people. "Great things for their nations" my ass.

Hitler's war goals were unrealistic and losing a war has less to do with ideology and more to do with the military strategic reality of Germany and her resources or lack thereof.

Stalin starved his own people, but he went from agrarian country to industralized country in a decade.

Then Hitler should have realized this. If your ideology relies on the "perfect leader", you were fucked from the start. Not to mention his ideology revolved around war.

What does that matter? Life wasn't good to live in the USSR before or after industrialization.