›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Kickstarting the Revolution

lifecirclelifecircle
in Politics
So i'm not american, but this particular podcast on the american voting system was such a great listen.

http://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-282-kickstarting-revolution/

Highlights for me:

We have one more choice of president than the old soviet union used to have- George Carlin

"you arent allowed to be blissfully unaware; in a republic, we all have a responsibility and job to do, for the system to work"

"The internet is this wild card, what about a kickstarter idea for votes? Won't that encourage more people to run against those backed by larger entities?"

"Some creator, innovator, business person, out there, he would make a great choice too wouldnt he? Would love to see one of those people up there on a stage with Hilary Clinton and Mitt Romney..whichever terrible choice we have, won't it be great to have someone different?" (*vote Rym for president)

"i'm not here to fix the budget, I'm not here to fix the wars, I'm here to reconnect the people with the political system, and that will be my legacy"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/books/republic-lost-campaign-finance-reform-book-review.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Comments

  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited December 2014
    Such naïveté... President is not king. President heads one of three co-equal branches of government. An independent President Rym would get shit-all done unless he joined with one of the two major parties, both of which would be so pissy about having to deal with an outsider that they would push very hard to insure any support they gave would come at a high cost.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • IlmarinenIlmarinen
    Independent candidates in Congress would be much easier, and more effective if there are enough to destabilize a partisan majority. A strong independent presidential candidate would have a far greater effect voter morale and turnout, and might scare the current parties out of their bickering if a sizeable portion of votes can be pulled.
  • GregGreg
    You guys have a very tame and mild definition of "revolution".
  • ninjarabbininjarabbi
    We have a minimum age for president, so maybe we should have a maximum age for congress. This whole "one funeral at a time" thing is taking too long.
  • PeguPegu
    Yeah
  • Dragonmaster LouDragonmaster Lou
    ninjarabbi said:

    We have a minimum age for president, so maybe we should have a maximum age for congress. This whole "one funeral at a time" thing is taking too long.

    FDR tried to do something similar for the Supreme Court. It failed miserably.

    People have also been asking for Congressional term limits for ages (it would effectively accomplish the same goal as a maximum age). No luck getting that through, probably because the same people who would be affected by the term limits are the ones who would vote to approve them.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    FDR tried to expand the size of SCOTUS because his programs were being overturned by the court. He was effectively trying to dilute the power of the existing judges by adding more seats. Hardly something to cheer.
  • IlmarinenIlmarinen
    HMTKSteve said:

    FDR tried to expand the size of SCOTUS because his programs were being overturned by the court. He was effectively trying to dilute the power of the existing judges by adding more seats. Hardly something to cheer.

    Why not? Representative democracy requires adequate representation, and without term limits a larger body of representatives is the only way. Power should always be diluted to limit corruption.

  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited December 2014
    SCOTUS is not a representative body.

    The House of Representatives is the representative body of US government.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • IlmarinenIlmarinen
    HMTKSteve said:

    SCOTUS is not a representative body.

    The House of Representatives is the representative body of US government.

    All of our governing bodies represent the people, and they are all elected or appointed by elected representatives.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Representing the people and representative of the people are two different things.

    Originally the House represented the people and the Senate represented the state. Hence House seats are based on population while Senate is two per state. You can argue that the senate still represented the people but it was indirect because the state government selected senators not the people.

    The judiciary is different and we want the highest judges to be above politics.
  • AndrewAndrew
    The Supreme Court is perhaps the most political branch of the government today.
  • GregGreg
    Y'know what I don't get? Why have there never been any Supreme Court assassinations? People have assassinated Presidents and Congressmen, but both of those positions require them to win re-election. Supreme Court appointments are for life. It's the only way to get rid of them. Obviously I'm not advocating for assassination of anyone, but there's a certain logic to it.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/13/us/justice-breyer-robbed/
  • GregGreg
    That's very different tho. It was an apolitical theft. I'm talking about people being literally attacked because of their policies.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    That I can't find anything on. Might be because every search I do gives me results relevant to the current case at SCOTUS referencing threats made on FB.
  • GregGreg
    I did some digging around many moons ago when it first occurred to me, and didn't find anything then either.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    I do not doubt that they have been threatened in the past but I can't google up any corroborating evidence.
Sign In or Register to comment.