No More Kings: Are we back where we started?

[Murhy]

Just because your elected representatives don't do exactly what YOU want done, the system is fatally broken?

All you Little Lord Fauntleroy's need to develop a little humility. The world really doesn't revolve around your every wish. Believe it or not, there are other people besides yourselves.

Representatives represent people. Most fools here would walk right into a Nazi Germany type of Plebiscite ... damn popular democracy fools. Madison and Hamilton warned us about most all the progressives and right wingers here

That's right. Representatives represent people...ALL the people in their district, state or nation, not just the selfish twits who want everything done THEIR way.

In the 2012 election, the popular vote in alabama was 60% red and 40% blue.

60% of the population was represented. The other 40% might as well have stayed at home.

2+2=5

 

[tinydancer]

Is that not the problem??? That the voice of the every day American is dead? That we know that? That we KNOW that it will always be like that?

Normally it is the youth of any country who foment change.

But too many of America's young people of today enjoy dependency on parents, institutions and government. They embrace dependency.

Not all.

But far too many. Hell's bells we have a sector of youth who let their mothers come with them for job interviews.

No rebels there.

And look at the massive youth vote for Obama. He promised them "Hope and Change". And they were stupid enough to buy in that Government was going to heal all of society's boo boos.

How do you fix that? Damned if I know because the field whether left or right is just full of has beens who live and breathe "inside the beltway".

I don't see any leaders on the horizon except for Paul and Cruz on the conservative side of life.

And on the left all the liberals want to do is crown Hillary; the royal family member of progressives because it's "her turn".

P.S. My mom didnt attend the interview for my current internship.

You give me hope .

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

One thing that can be done to remedy this is to increase the size of the House of Representatives. 435 people cannot effectively represent 310 million. Congressional districts are roughly 700,000 people. That's too large and diverse of a group to be represented by one person. Congressional districts were originally never to exceed 60,000 people. Certainly with today's technology we don't need them to be that small, but at the minimum the House should double or even triple in size. That would allow more personal time between elected representatives and their constituents since there would be far fewer of them and less geography to travel and that number of representatives would also make it more difficult for lobbyists to influence them. Given technology today, there is no need for them to have a quorum in D.C. for every single vote. The bulk of their votes should be made online from their home districts with only occasional quorums in D.C.

 

[Foxfyre]

The people are NOT represented by professional politicians whose primary motive is to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. Those who actually attempt to represent their constituency in a way that interferes with the goals of the professional politicians are quickly marginalized and unempowered to get much of anything done. If necessary they are demonized right out of office again.

Until we take away the power of those elected, appointed, or hired to high office to profit themselves at our expense, we will not have public servants who represent us. And I am very much convinced this is the last generation who has any chance to do that. If they do not, we will return to a totally authoriarian government that will perpetuate itself and assign us what rights, privileges, opportunities, and possesions we will be allowed.

 

[Sunshine]

We are supposed to be under the impression that we are represented.

But the popular vote in the presidential election is a joke.

Yet the average American still feels empowered when they cast that ballot...even though it ultimately means nothing.

Its like complaining about a co-worker to HR....most of the time nothing is even done about what you are complaining about...you just feel better for being able to complain about it.

He who has the money has the power....welcome to the new world.

This country was founded on 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.' It has never been anything else. It is just that more people are able to demand something for nothing from the taxpayers and the taxpayers are helpless to do anything about it.

 

[Sunshine]

We are supposed to be under the impression that we are represented.

But the popular vote in the presidential election is a joke. .

The popular vote was never intended to carry the election.

jesus, it's gets dumber as I scroll down the posts here

That's because you started posting. What did you expect would happen.

 

[Sunshine]

Just because your elected representatives don't do exactly what YOU want done, the system is fatally broken?

All you Little Lord Fauntleroy's need to develop a little humility. The world really doesn't revolve around your every wish. Believe it or not, there are other people besides yourselves.

It's the 'quality time' generation. They expect undivided attention.

 

[tinydancer]

The people are NOT represented by professional politicians whose primary motive is to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. Those who actually attempt to represent their constituency in a way that interferes with the goals of the professional politicians are quickly marginalized and unempowered to get much of anything done. If necessary they are demonized right out of office again.

Until we take away the power of those elected, appointed, or hired to high office to profit themselves at our expense, we will not have public servants who represent us. And I am very much convinced this is the last generation who has any chance to do that. If they do not, we will return to a totally authoriarian government that will perpetuate itself and assign us what rights, privileges, opportunities, and possesions we will be allowed.

I just read a statement by Senator Schumer that is highly disturbing. He wants to form another "Gang of Eight".

These wannabe rulers of the Senate wield too much power. How do eight men and women represent the ideas of the nation?

I find it extremely reprehensible and distasteful that these Senators elevate themselves above the others.

Maybe I'm just being picayune here but I blow a gasket every time one of these professional politicians (either side of the aisle/ bipartisan bashing ) refer to a fellow Senator as a "Junior Senator".

It's demeaning and it truly reveals the elitism that comes about with one having been in office far too long.

"“I proposed along with [Sen.] Lindsey Graham [R-S.C.], we’ll be announcing that we have four Democrats, four Republicans, another Gang of Eight,” said Schumer on CBS’s Face the Nation.

“I love these gangs of eight I guess.”


Schumer: New ?Gang of Eight? to draft rules for press subpoenas - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

 

[Sunshine]

The people are NOT represented by professional politicians whose primary motive is to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. Those who actually attempt to represent their constituency in a way that interferes with the goals of the professional politicians are quickly marginalized and unempowered to get much of anything done. If necessary they are demonized right out of office again.

Until we take away the power of those elected, appointed, or hired to high office to profit themselves at our expense, we will not have public servants who represent us. And I am very much convinced this is the last generation who has any chance to do that. If they do not, we will return to a totally authoriarian government that will perpetuate itself and assign us what rights, privileges, opportunities, and possesions we will be allowed.

I just read a statement by Senator Schumer that is highly disturbing. He wants to form another "Gang of Eight".

These wannabe rulers of the Senate wield too much power. How do eight men and women represent the ideas of the nation?

I find it extremely reprehensible and distasteful that these Senators elevate themselves above the others.

Maybe I'm just being picayune here but I blow a gasket every time one of these professional politicians (either side of the aisle/ bipartisan bashing ) refer to a fellow Senator as a "Junior Senator".

It's demeaning and it truly reveals the elitism that comes about with one having been in office far too long.

"“I proposed along with [Sen.] Lindsey Graham [R-S.C.], we’ll be announcing that we have four Democrats, four Republicans, another Gang of Eight,” said Schumer on CBS’s Face the Nation.

“I love these gangs of eight I guess.”


Schumer: New ?Gang of Eight? to draft rules for press subpoenas - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

Not looking for the link, but a while back I read that Congress said the fault for the mess we are in lies with the voters because we don't let them stay long enough to accomplish anything. How audacious can they get? Honestly, I think that is the idea. The things they accomplish just hurt us more and more. Each party has its own method for taking as much of our money as they can. That is the agenda, the methodology is all that differs. In my entire life, there has not been one admnistration, not one congress, not one changing of the guard that didn't find me paying higher taxes than the one before.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lack of actual representation in our so called "Representative Democracy" is becoming so much of a problem for most, it makes you wonder if we are not headed back to where we began?

No, it makes everyone else wonder where you and others on the right come up with this inane nonsense.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I just read a statement by Senator Schumer that is highly disturbing. He wants to form another "Gang of Eight".

These wannabe rulers of the Senate wield too much power. How do eight men and women represent the ideas of the nation?

They were never supposed to. A good reason to repeal the 17th Amendment.

 

[whitehall]

Throughout history the media has been part of the checks and balances of government abuse. When the media becomes an arm of the administration as it did during WW2 and is now any affront to the Constitution is possible including incarcerating American citizens for the duration of WW2 and executing them without due process when it becomes too inconvenient to apprehend them.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We are supposed to be under the impression that we are represented.

But the popular vote in the presidential election is a joke. .

The popular vote was never intended to carry the election.

jesus, it's gets dumber as I scroll down the posts here

The point is, Dante, that the popular vote should matter.

What the people say should matter.

It doesnt.

Nonsense.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy.

What the people ‘say’ matters in the context of Constitutional case law, where ‘majority rule’ doesn’t trump inalienable rights and personal liberty. It’s incumbent upon the people, therefore, to act in a manner consistent with Constitutional case law, either through their elected representatives or referenda, and failing that have their actions offensive to the Constitution invalidated by the courts.

Last, Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution “guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…” meaning the many states elect the president, where a ‘popular vote’ would render the states irrelevant and undermine the republican governmental model.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

One thing that can be done to remedy this is to increase the size of the House of Representatives. 435 people cannot effectively represent 310 million. Congressional districts are roughly 700,000 people. That's too large and diverse of a group to be represented by one person. Congressional districts were originally never to exceed 60,000 people. Certainly with today's technology we don't need them to be that small, but at the minimum the House should double or even triple in size. That would allow more personal time between elected representatives and their constituents since there would be far fewer of them and less geography to travel and that number of representatives would also make it more difficult for lobbyists to influence them. Given technology today, there is no need for them to have a quorum in D.C. for every single vote. The bulk of their votes should be made online from their home districts with only occasional quorums in D.C.

Interesting points well made. My thought is 25% more reps and another senator per state, but before any of that, it'd be good to see some hard lines drawn on conduct in office.

 

[Oldguy]

The people are NOT represented by professional politicians whose primary motive is to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. Those who actually attempt to represent their constituency in a way that interferes with the goals of the professional politicians are quickly marginalized and unempowered to get much of anything done. If necessary they are demonized right out of office again.

Until we take away the power of those elected, appointed, or hired to high office to profit themselves at our expense, we will not have public servants who represent us. And I am very much convinced this is the last generation who has any chance to do that. If they do not, we will return to a totally authoriarian government that will perpetuate itself and assign us what rights, privileges, opportunities, and possesions we will be allowed.

I just read a statement by Senator Schumer that is highly disturbing. He wants to form another "Gang of Eight".

These wannabe rulers of the Senate wield too much power. How do eight men and women represent the ideas of the nation?

I find it extremely reprehensible and distasteful that these Senators elevate themselves above the others.

Maybe I'm just being picayune here but I blow a gasket every time one of these professional politicians (either side of the aisle/ bipartisan bashing ) refer to a fellow Senator as a "Junior Senator".

It's demeaning and it truly reveals the elitism that comes about with one having been in office far too long.

"“I proposed along with [Sen.] Lindsey Graham [R-S.C.], we’ll be announcing that we have four Democrats, four Republicans, another Gang of Eight,” said Schumer on CBS’s Face the Nation.

“I love these gangs of eight I guess.”


Schumer: New ?Gang of Eight? to draft rules for press subpoenas - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

"Gang of Eight," or "Gang of Four" or whatever is just another term for consensus building. You know...the stuff of compromise? Do you know nothing of how a legislative body actually works?

Junior Senator: That's merely a term to designate the most recently elected Senator from a state, not an insult.

 

[Oldguy]

The people are NOT represented by professional politicians whose primary motive is to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. Those who actually attempt to represent their constituency in a way that interferes with the goals of the professional politicians are quickly marginalized and unempowered to get much of anything done. If necessary they are demonized right out of office again.

Until we take away the power of those elected, appointed, or hired to high office to profit themselves at our expense, we will not have public servants who represent us. And I am very much convinced this is the last generation who has any chance to do that. If they do not, we will return to a totally authoriarian government that will perpetuate itself and assign us what rights, privileges, opportunities, and possesions we will be allowed.

And, how do you take away their power to "profit themselves?" In fact, what do you mean by that term?

 

[Murhy]

The people are NOT represented by professional politicians whose primary motive is to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. Those who actually attempt to represent their constituency in a way that interferes with the goals of the professional politicians are quickly marginalized and unempowered to get much of anything done. If necessary they are demonized right out of office again.

Until we take away the power of those elected, appointed, or hired to high office to profit themselves at our expense, we will not have public servants who represent us. And I am very much convinced this is the last generation who has any chance to do that. If they do not, we will return to a totally authoriarian government that will perpetuate itself and assign us what rights, privileges, opportunities, and possesions we will be allowed.

And, how do you take away their power to "profit themselves?" In fact, what do you mean by that term?

Loyalty, Patriotism, doing the right thing.....these things are no longer the currency of our nation. Currency is now the currency of our nation.

How do you take away the power of those in power? Use today's currency.

If it were the 1970s right now, Obama would have been the second president to resign from his position....and if not he would have been gone two months ago at least. Lets get real.

Welcome to 2013.

 

[Foxfyre]

The people are NOT represented by professional politicians whose primary motive is to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. Those who actually attempt to represent their constituency in a way that interferes with the goals of the professional politicians are quickly marginalized and unempowered to get much of anything done. If necessary they are demonized right out of office again.

Until we take away the power of those elected, appointed, or hired to high office to profit themselves at our expense, we will not have public servants who represent us. And I am very much convinced this is the last generation who has any chance to do that. If they do not, we will return to a totally authoriarian government that will perpetuate itself and assign us what rights, privileges, opportunities, and possesions we will be allowed.

And, how do you take away their power to "profit themselves?" In fact, what do you mean by that term?

Right now somebody can be elected to Congress without a pot to pee in and in a fairly short time, with congressional benefits Congress has awarded to themselves plus the favors and influence he is able to buy, he can leave a multi-millionaire or with that as a fairly certain future. That, IMO, has become the primary goal driving almost the whole bunch of them. They are able to control the message and use our money to buy our votes, and they have full ability to steer our tax dollars to whomever they need to pay off for putting them in office or who will ensure their futures should they leave office. They no longer are concerned what damage they do to the country in the interim because they fully expect to get theirs and then move on before everything hits the fan and somebody else gets the blame for it.

Do you think it was purely coincidence that the worst of Obamacare wouldn't kick in until after Obama was secure in his second term and after he had time to shore up his democratic base?

The way we fix it is to take away their ability to use the people's money to reward themselves or anybody else inside or outside of government. The way we fix it is to assign the federal government its specifically stated constitutional duties and leave ALL charity of any and every kind to the states and local communities to do. The way we do it is for those elected, appointed, and hired in government to fund their own healthcare and retirement plans that they can take with them but the taxpayer does not pay for them and for them to be subject to ALL the laws they pass for all the rest of us. The way we do it is to take the profit out of it for career politicians so that only true public servants will be inspired to run for public office.

 

[corazonroto]

This a non-political party statement.
It is a We the People statement.

Lack of...
...
...Begin Discussion...

Thank you. Your lack of awareness of political realities is astounding.

"We the People" You alone cannot speak for 'the people'

thank you.

beginning over

...

the end

Huh? I must look deeper like you seem to have the power to do, because I never said I was speaking for "we the people" just trying to avoid being tagged as a lefty or righty or teapy. Which is usually the first knee jerk reaction online before the actual facts are looked over...thank you for the amusing burst of negativity for no apparent reason tho...very amusing ♥

ps..many individual people famous, infamous and non important (like me) have spoken on behalf of "we the people"...isn't that one our rights still? Who are you to decide who can and can't?

I guess you're the one that just went down the whole thread making as many negative comments as you could in one quick burst according to the times logged on each comment you made. Hate much? Enjoying making comebacks....and going off topic for all to see.

 

[Oldguy]

The people are NOT represented by professional politicians whose primary motive is to increase their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth. Those who actually attempt to represent their constituency in a way that interferes with the goals of the professional politicians are quickly marginalized and unempowered to get much of anything done. If necessary they are demonized right out of office again.

Until we take away the power of those elected, appointed, or hired to high office to profit themselves at our expense, we will not have public servants who represent us. And I am very much convinced this is the last generation who has any chance to do that. If they do not, we will return to a totally authoriarian government that will perpetuate itself and assign us what rights, privileges, opportunities, and possesions we will be allowed.

And, how do you take away their power to "profit themselves?" In fact, what do you mean by that term?

Loyalty, Patriotism, doing the right thing.....these things are no longer the currency of our nation. Currency is now the currency of our nation.

How do you take away the power of those in power? Use today's currency.

If it were the 1970s right now, Obama would have been the second president to resign from his position....and if not he would have been gone two months ago at least. Lets get real.

Welcome to 2013.

You're not suggesting that politician's were somehow more noble in the past are you? That's a false impression of history and, for that matter, of human nature.