Just curious about what people believe has to be done to fix anything

[marym625]

Last edited Sun Sep 21, 2014, 12:11 PM - Edit history (2)

There is so much wrong at the moment. Too much. Every problem is important. Depending on who you ask, one problem is more important than any other.

I want to get a feel for what those of us that call ourselves liberals, progressives and sometimes still Democrats, believe has to be done first.

This is the first poll I have created so I am not exactly sure how it works. If you think I left something big out and are not able to add it to the poll yourself, please let me know and I will add it.

Thanks for participating

On edit: I cannot add more. Evidently 10 is the limit. I replaced 2 items no one had voted for with the first 2 suggested items, instant runoff elections and term limits for SCOTUS Justices

Second edit: since there have been no votes for the SCOTUS term limits, I have replaced it with "revolution." I do not mean taking up arms against the government. But if that should be what you think, please note it in the comments.

Jesus, this is really scary.

30 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Getting out the vote
	1 (3%)
	Reenacting or replacing the demolished VRA
	0 (0%)
	Instant run off elections
	0 (0%)
	Money out of politics
	24 (80%)
	Reinstating bank regulations and prosecuting those that brought down the economy
	0 (0%)
	Equality in law via Amendments including, but not limited to, the ERA
	0 (0%)
	Laws that will hinder global warming
	0 (0%)
	Staying out of wars everywhere, including the middle east
	2 (7%)
	over population has to be addressed
	2 (7%)
	Time for a revolution. Too late for conventional means
	1 (3%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[99Forever]

1. I would add to my poll vote, two things.

All voting to be done hard copy and all elections to be instant run-off voting.

[marym625]

3. I'm sorry. I am not familiar with the term

Instant run off?

Thanks for your input!

[99Forever]

5. You rank all of the candidates as to your preference.

If your first choice is eliminated, your vote goes to your second choice, etc.

Your voice always counts and you can always vote your conscience.

[marym625]

6. interesting

Not sure what I think about that. Going to be researching it now. Thanks so much for the information.

[99Forever]

13. You are most welcome.

Enjoy your search, bed time for me. Good night.

[marym625]

15. Sweet dreams! eom

[rogerashton]

34. I agree with 99forever!

In general, we can think a little more about how we do democracy.

But I wanted an "all of the above" -- including instant runoff voting.

[marym625]

37. I am going to remove

The one about taking military equipment from local police and replace it with "instant run off elections." Now that I know about it (thank you 99forever) I very much like the idea. Only way a third party candidate has a prayer.

I don't want an "all of the above" because I am looking for the one most important item. At least what the majority of those that respond believe it is.

Thank you for your input!

[marym625]

40. I added runoff elections

Thanks so much for the suggestion. Now that I have read about it, I like the idea. In our current two party quagmire, it's the only way a third party candidate has a chance.

[99Forever]

49. You are most welcome.

I first heard of Instant Run-off Voting from Thom Hartmann and think it's brilliant. As you say, it's the only way third party stands a real chance to make a difference FOR us. True democracy for the people.

[marym625]

50. If it had existed back in 2000

Maybe we wouldn't have had the insanity that ensued. Maybe. Even though we know Gore won, it wouldn't have been something bush and his cronies could have pulled off. Maybe

[99Forever]

51. The wrld would be a different place.

Of that, there can be no doubt.

[marym625]

53. almost makes me want to cry.

I am still angry with Gore for giving in. As my brother said to me yesterday, if the Gore that was around right after the election had been around before the election, Nader probably wouldn't have run and Gore would have gotten votes that went to Bush as well.

Sigh

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. I'm up in the air over instant run offs ...

IRV can have either of two completely opposite effects, depending on whether a third party is truly competitive or not. Before a third party is competitive, the effect of IRV is equivalent to a plurality system in which all supporters of minor parties are somehow convinced to abandon their principles and vote for the "lesser of two evils." Yes, those voters get the satisfaction of knowing they voted for the party and the candidate they truly prefer, but their first choice is eventually eliminated and has no effect on who actually wins. After a third party is competitive, on the other hand, the effect if IRV is equivalent to a plurality system in which many voters are somehow convinced to forget about strategy and vote sincerely. As most intelligent voters know, that would wreak havoc with the stability of our political system.

http://minguo.info/election_methods/irv

But if we're going to do that, I'd suggest adding add three features: 1) All campaigns are to be publically financed (or have funding caps) and no outside or dark money; 2) Make the contests non-partisan (no political labels); and, 3) Make all elections held on the same day(s), rather than, over the course of months.

[marym625]

113. Good suggestions

But I don't have a problem with a third party candidate being treated like plurality candidate. That wouldn't happen unless there were enough votes that they could possibly win.

Our system is in a quagmire. Something has to be done. But getting the money out is going to be the only way to get elected officials that actually concentrate on why they were elected instead of how to raise money for the next election.

Thanks for your input!

[LostInAnomie]

2. Getting money out of politics solves or greatly alleviates most of these issues.

[marym625]

4. That's what I think

I don't think we will get anywhere until that happens. Not with anything

[nomorenomore08]

8. +2

[Jamaal510]

7. In order to get money out of politics,

people need to elect more representatives who are willing to do so.

[marym625]

10. But without it out

Will that ever happen?

[MannyGoldstein]

9. All of 'em

Which will happen when we wake up and elect people who are neither sociopaths, lunatics, nor #%^*heads.

[marym625]

11. Have to get them to run

And as long as there is money in politics, do you think they would be elected?

[MannyGoldstein]

12. I do.

I think that people are fed up with the BS, and the Internet is a low-cost way to cut through the noise.

[marym625]

14. I hope you are right

Thanks for your input!

[marym625]

16. I have never asked for recs before

But I would like to get more votes on this. I could enough recs just so it appears on the Greatest posts, I would appreciate it. Just don't want it to disappear before more votes are in

[Uncle Joe]

17. Consider it done, and as to your poll

I view corruptive and obstructive money in politics as the root of the tree from which most if not every one of those other issues you cited grow or branch from.

Thanks for the thread, marym.

[marym625]

18. Thank you Uncle Joe!

And I agree completely

[20score]

19. I almost voted for the Vegetable Rights Association as the most important, but thought,

maybe those other issues are even more important.

I would say nationally, money out of politics is the first priority. Once that is done, thousands of other problems can actually be addressed and fixed. As it is now, what is good for the majority, or what the majority wants, is completely irrelevant to those in power. An amendment to the Constitution that combines publicly funded elections with a guaranty of one person, one vote, would solve a hell of a lot of problems. It would even fix the Voting Rights Act.

On the global stage, nothing comes close to overpopulation as the most important problem.

[marym625]

20. The vegetables rights act is SO important!

LMAO!

I agree with you, 20Score. Thanks for your input.

[rug]

21. Until this government is demilitarized, the dog whistle will always bring down everything else.

[marym625]

22. Good point!

I appreciate your input!

[marym625]

23. 14 Wars/conflicts since 1960

Just picked the beginning of that decade because that's the decade I was born.

The US has been involved in 14 wars or conflicts since 1960. That's insane.

[Kath1]

30. "That's insane."

Yes it is. Time to "just say no" to war, IMO.

[marym625]

35. It's far past time

We had no business in most of those. We screwed things up for the people in those countries and ourselves in the majority of them.

Your statement reminded me of the Baez sisters. They had an anti-war poster during Vietnam. The poster had a picture of the 3 sisters sitting on a couch and underneath read, "Baez girls say yes to boys who say no." Could have been reversed, "Baez girls say no to boys who say yes." Think it was the former though.

[Kath1]

87. Thank you.

I agree 100%. "Girls say yes to boys who say no." That was the slogan on the poster.

[marym625]

89. Thank you!

Here it is

[Unknown Beatle]

24. I think there should be

term limits for people serving in the SCOTUS.

[marym625]

25. Yeah

I don't know what I would want that to be but certainly not a forever seat. I mean, holy dog! Clarence could be there for a few more decades!

I'm sorry, I didn't realize the poll is limited to 10 choices. I am unable to add that. .

If no one has voted for one of the choices by morning, I will switch it to yours.

Thank you for your input

[20score]

26. That amendment would be extremely difficult to pass.

Much easier to impeach the bad justices.

[marym625]

29. Then we need to do it

A SC Justice shouldn't have interest in corporations that benefit from their decision. Scalia

[20score]

73. That may sound good on the face of it because Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito

aren't fit to judge a hog calling contest in Arkansas. But there would be huge unintended consequences from term limits. There is a reason the lifetime term was set in the Constitution.

With money out of politics we would have a better senate and a more responsive president; then we would have better justices. With judges that will be looking for work after their term is up, we would need to deal with tainted rulings affected by what they hope will be a lucrative job after their term is over. It's bad now with the judges mentioned above. It would be even worse under termed out justices.

There are legal justifications to impeach Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Pressure should be put on congress to do just that.

But as bad as all the political problems are - and there are some extremely important issues that can not be ignored for a second - it all pales in comparison the disappearance of so much land, so many species and the terrible quality of life for billions (not to mention the billions who will starve) if overpopulation isn't taken seriously.

[marym625]

74. excellent

All of what you said.

Just on the loss of land, someone posted about the coast line of Louisiana the other day. Unfortunately, I can't find it at the moment. But the shape of Louisiana is no longer the boot. You know the loss of land is happening all over the world.

We are in deep shit from every angle.

[marym625]

52. I added that choice. Thank you! eom

[davidpdx]

27. Getting the money out of politics is the first move that is needed

Otherwise the rest is going to be difficult.

[marym625]

28. Looks like the majority agree

I know I do.

Thanks for your input!

[baldguy]

31. I think liberals have to stop attacking the only party that supports liberal policies: The Democrats

[marym625]

41. interesting comment

I am curious about it. Do you not think there are legitimate concerns with the party? Or do you not believe that they should be scrutinized, questioned and critized? What about parties like the Green party?

I thank you for your input.

[baldguy]

81. Do you think the GOP would allow any discussion of policies of interest to liberals?

Because if liberals don't fully support the Democratic Party - or worse, throw support toward a third party - what we'd have is a permanent Republican majority. Is that really what you want? To be politically pure in your enslavement?

[marym625]

84. We already are eom

[baldguy]

85. So, Pres Rand Paul is an acceptable alternative to the less-than-perfect Hillary Clinton?

Sorry, that's just delusional. Any Dem is going to be 10000% better for liberal causes than any GOPer. If liberals don't vote Democratic, they may as well be campaigning for the other guys - and their dearest issues (including all of those in the OP & more) will be washed away with the surging tide of innocent blood & economic chaos.

[marym625]

86. I used to believe that.

No, there is little difference. Hillary Clinton is much worse than less than perfect. She's a warmongering, corporate, lying stooge.

[baldguy]

88. Am I getting deja vu?

This is the exact same argument trotted out by uninformed kool-aid drinkers on the Left as an excuse for not supporting Gore in 2000.

And Kerry in 2004.
And Clinton in 1996 & 1994.
And Carter in 1980.

And it's bullshit. It's been bullshit for more than 30 yrs. You're not doing anything to "move the party to the Left", or create a viable 3rd party. You're just making it harder to defeat the forces of darkness on the Right.

[marym625]

90. As I said

I used to believe that. I used to argue it. And what difference did it make?

Our 2 party system isn't working. There really isn't much difference between the two except for the extreme in both.

Maybe runoff voting would make a difference. But something has to change

[baldguy]

91. If it's not working, it's only because people are discouraged from getting involved.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE RIGHT WANTS!!

If you promote the lie that there's no difference between the GOP and the Democrats, If you don't vote for the only party that works to oppose the RW, or don't vote at all, it only helps the RW destroy America.

[marym625]

93. I would never not vote

I haven't missed one election since I turned 18. All the way from village to presidential. I have never voted anything but a straight democratic ticket.

Until now.

I am sorry but I disagree. We are no longer that different. And some of the things that are happening are no longer worth voting a straight ticket. And NOTHING will change as long as we continue down this destructive path.

I know there are still democratic candidates out there that actually stand for the same liberal values most of us do. But there are way too damn many that don't.

The instant runoff elections, which I learned about here from 99Forever, would solve the problem you have with third party candidates. But if someone in my district, city, county, State, whatever, voted for the Patriot Act, is against a woman controlling her own body, is against HJRES 43/SJ RES 15, doesn't do everything possible to stop fracking and global warming, etc etc etc, I will not vote for them.

Don't forget, Gore won in 2000 and then gave up. Carter was not reelected because he was an ineffectual President. Had he been like the man he has been since leaving office, he would have won. Kerry, most likely, won in 2004. I don't believe for a minute that the black box voting machines weren't rigged. They proved that Bush received more votes in some counties in Ohio than the rest were voters. And don't forget all the disenfranchised voters that year. But the Democrats whimped out and did nothing about it. Again.

It was Clinton that deregulated the banks to the point of no return. I know he sure didn't start it but he could have ended it and instead made it so much worse.

Though there are differences between the parties there often is not enough difference in each candidate. And more often than not, a liberal 3rd party candidate stands for what we truly stand for.

For too long we have played the game along with the politicians. That is why we are where we are.

[baldguy]

96. The main problem America has is there are too many RW Republicans with power & influence.

As long as you're more interested in attacking Democrats who are trying to build a better future, rather than the Republicans who are trying to destroy it, then you're part of the problem.

[marym625]

97. wow

If that's what you got from what I said then one, you aren't paying attention because I am not saying "Yay! All Democrats rock no matter what they do" and two, there's no point in continuing this discussion because, see one.

Do I despise Republicans? Yes. All of them. Do I believe there are still good democrats? Yes. Will I ever be a robot for the party again. No.


Apologists are just as bad as Republicans

[baldguy]

98. I pay very close attention.

You talk about getting impeachments & new Constitutional Amendments as if they're as easy as tyeing a shoe, when they're intentionally the most difficult processes to accomplish. And you keep telling me that you don't support third parties, but elsewhere in this thread again & again you praise them. This tells me you have no understanding of our political process: we do not have a parliamentary system & coalitions are not built in the govt by elected officials at the legislative level. In America political coalitions are created & built at the party level by people, who then work to get Representatives who support their policies elected. Those elected officials then need to debate, haggle, trade & compromise to be able to succeed and get things done.

If you don't like that framework, think the process sucks & refuse to participate, because it's just too hard - too bad. It's supposed to be hard. You need to grow up & recognize that getting a friendly candidate elected is just the START of the long, drawn out process of getting what you want, and that candidate will never produce responsible legislation for you unless & until they have a political majority to work with. Voting for every Democratic candidate at every level in every election is what creates that political majority.

The Republicans understood this half a century ago, but it still took them 20 yrs to get their boy in the Oval Office to enact the Republican Revolution, and we've been living with the horrific consequences ever since. The only reason Bill Clinton and Obama even got elected is because the GOP policies are generally disastrous for the average person. And even so, uninformed liberals were wringing their hands & pulling their hair, threatening to withdraw their support in the face of an unending onslaught by the GOP on Clinton & Obama.

So, whenever anyone claims to be a liberal, then says they don't support the Democrats, there's ample evidence to question either their intelligence, their sanity, or their loyalty.

[marym625]

99. nowhere did I say I don't support third parties

Nowhere did I say anything about passing Amendments or impeachment being easy.

Your first couple sentences show you are not understanding me or are deliberately misinterpreting.

You're a bot.

I am done with this conversation

[baldguy]

100. Interesting that you've stooped to using RW epithets for those who disagree with you

or those that simply prove you're wrong.

[marym625]

106. Again WOW

You're just on some other planet.

[dionysus]

121. i got a vibe about this one.

[marym625]

123. care to explain?

[neverforget]

130. You've been deemed impure.

Welcome to the club.

[marym625]

131. But, I haven't even posted

About my sex life!

Hee hee.

Thanks. I'm in good company.

I will say that I had a behind the scenes little discussion and I THINK it's all good. Not sure. But people will believe what they want.

[1StrongBlackMan]

104. ETA: even if specific policies are not as liberal as you would like to see. eom.

[baldguy]

109. Most definitely.

Because they're guaranteed to be 1000x more liberal than anything the GOP has to offer.

[1StrongBlackMan]

111. Oh Noes ...

Not the "lesser of two evils" point!

Now. To get home ... Do I take the traffic-congested route through the city; or, should I go 5 miles out of my way, to take the express way?

[baldguy]

112. Why not take a Star Trek-style transporter to get home?

Oh, right. That doesn't exist yet. And it's not likely to in the near future, if ever. Are you going to hang out at your job waiting for it to be invented?

Or are you going to get into your car & get home as best you can, because you realize waiting for Scotty to beam you out is wishful thinking? We need a little less wishful thinking in liberal politics.

[1StrongBlackMan]

115. I knew you would catch my drift!

[marym625]

136. Take public transportation

I don't own a car

[baldguy]

152. Your smug self-righteousness is noted.

The fact is almost half of America doesn't have reliable, affordable & accessible public transportation. That puts the bus n the same category as the transporter from the Enterprise: out of reach & unavailable. I can get in my car and be at work in 15 min during morning rush hour. The same trip on a public bus takes 2.5 hours. I can literally walk faster than that! So, in spite of your uninformed & unrealistic wishful thinking, it's not an option for a lot of people who just happen to be natural allies of liberals.

Is public transport a good thing? Certainly. Should we invest more resources for it? Of course! Do you really think allowing Republicans to control the purse strings will accomplish that? If you do, you're fucking crazy. All the more reason to support the Democratic Party - which you don't.

[marym625]

153. You're truly just nuts.

Enjoy!

[baldguy]

154. I'm not the one asking for solutions to important issues

Then refuses to support the only party offering those solutions - all the while allowing the party who exasperates those issues to remain in power.

[marym625]

156. Gee I thought the

Executive branch and the majority of the Senate were Democrats.

Again, you put words in my mouth. I do not "refuse to support" the democratic party. I do refuse to do so blindly.

I also didn't ask for solutions but asked what people thought the biggest issue is.

I have said before I am done with this conversation then allowed myself to be dragged back into it because you continually twist my words and purposefully misinterpret me. But there's no sense in continuing when you are obviously just being a dick. It's not smug to take public transportation. It's smug to believe I have a choice.

[marym625]

114. I'm with you

I admit, if there is no third party candidate that I agree with, I will vote for the lesser of two evils. But I really hope that doesn't happen. Frankly, if HC is the democratic candidate for 2016, and for whatever reason the Green Party doesn't have someone running, I will be hard pressed to know what to do. She's got to be the absolute worst choice for the Democratic party and the country.

[1StrongBlackMan]

116. The decision seems clear ...

If HRC is the Democratic nominee in 2016 and the Green Party doesn't field a candidate (for me, even if they do), ask yourself: Would HRC be a worst choice than her republican candidate?

That is the reality we live in.

My suggestion is vote for HRC ... then spend the next 4 years finding and building support for the candidate of your choice ... all while voicing your support for her when she does stuff you support and offering a real alternative when she doesn't.

[marym625]

120. What does it say about the

Democratic party if HRC is the candidate?

She's just so bad I have to hope (and am working to make sure) she isn't.

I won't have a choice, in your scenario. But I sure hope that's not what happens. I can't stand her

[1StrongBlackMan]

122. As much as DU bucks ...

HRC is at the center of the Party, which says that the Party is much bigger than DU.

[marym625]

125. She wouldn't have been

And wasn't when she was voting for an illegal war and for the Patriot Act. And so many other wretched things.

She is now playing the game again. I don't believe a thing that comes out of her mouth.

It's also because the Republican party has made such a mess of their party and so many have left it, that the moderate Democrat is closer to a "liberal" Republican of 20 years ago.

When I hear a Democrat say, and so many have, that the NSA spying without warrant or even reason is okay because they have "nothing to hide" it makes me ill.

We are not the liberal progressive party we used to be and that sucks.

I said before I hate Republicans. All of them. Anyone that can back their ideology is just a terrible person. But I can't and won't ignore the fact that as time goes by, we become more and more like them.

I know there are truly great Democrats and I support them. HRC is not one of them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

138. Actually ...

Yes she was and Yes she still is.

We are not the liberal progressive party we used to be and that sucks.

I said before I hate Republicans. All of them. Anyone that can back their ideology is just a terrible person. But I can't and won't ignore the fact that as time goes by, we become more and more like them.

I know this is tough to hear/recognize; but the Democratic Party of the past (and as a whole), may have been liberal and progressive on SOME issues, while being very conservative on others ... and within the part there has always existed, both liberal/progressive and conservative factions.

But please do not buy into the internet/punditry narrative that the Democratic Party of today would be the moderate republican of yesterday ... it simply is not true. And the Democratic Party of today, is no where approaching the republican party of today.

Finally,

I know there are truly great Democrats and I support them. HRC is not one of them.

I suggest that you take a good look at where HRC really is (has been) on the issues ...

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm#Education

Some positions we agree with; others, not so much ... but on the whole she is squarely in the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

{Please note, I have not taken a position on HRC's candidacy (and won't until the 2016 Primary season) ... other than a firm belief that she is not the anti-Christ, nor is she "just like a republican."}

[marym625]

148. I thank you for the discussion and

the information. However, I still disagree. I know that the Democratic party has never been and will never be truly all liberal/progressive. But we were much more so more so many years ago than we are now. Can you imagine someone like McGovern even coming close to getting the nomination today? Would NEVER happen. Yes, he lost BIG TIME but the fact that he even was the Democratic candidate shows we were, at that time, more liberal and progressive than we are now.

On HRC, there's no point in trying to convince me she's moderate. She's a tool of the corporations. I don't think she's the anti-Christ, but I don't think she's much better. Sorry.

I do appreciate the civil discussion. THANK YOU

[1StrongBlackMan]

149. Not a problem.

I really do enjoy civil discussion, even in their disagreements.

[marym625]

150. As do I

only way to accomplish anything. If someone starts twisting words, attacking personally, demeaning thoughts, etc, there's just no point in trying to get anywhere.

[1StrongBlackMan]

151. A lesson I really should learn. eom.

[JustAnotherGen]

32. I selected bringing back

VRA in its original form but that would also include/is wed to GOTV.

Whether the dinosaurs in our party want to admit it or not - minorities will be the majority in my lifetime (I'm 41).

You want to ensure the expansion of liberal and progressive policy- make sure us "brown" folks can vote NOW!

[marym625]

43. Suppression of voters' rights is my 2nd choice

I honestly believe if we don't get money out of politics SOON, we're sunk.

People of color and women.

Thank you for your input!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. Looks like most everyone agrees that a seismic shift in politics is the way to break things free

and start working on all the other problems. If every candidate in a given race has the same amount of money to spend as any other candidate, you'll start being able to defeat incumbents who survive because of large war chests and Rovian support groups. To be honest, while that's a great idea, non-partisan redistricting across the country would probably be just as important.

There are far more critical problems to the survival of humanity, and the country, but we can't even begin to most of them in any useful way without concerted government action.

[marym625]

44. Well said.

And don't forget all the money incumbents get just because they are incumbents.

Public funding seems to be a no brainer. But I am sure our founding fathers never imagined the Koch brothers or that corporations would be considered individuals.

[CrispyQ]

56. Non-partisan redistricting - a great idea.

[Romulox]

36. I would say the banks need more public money, and Iraq needs a-bombing!

Then I would like to see an increase in dragnet surveillance, and drone killing.

You know, all the core principles of the Party.

[marym625]

45. Don't forget the militarization of the police!

That's a big one!

Thanks for the laugh!

[Eleanors38]

38. I voted "pass." All the issues have merit. But #1 is...

developing a movement that has half a chance at accomplishing these goals. We have to decide if the liberal/progressive community is even that anymore, then spread our influence through a post-mass-media social & Innertube muck, then decide to either TAKEOVER the Democratic Party or form a NEW PARTY, then advance a militant agenda on-the-cheap, much of it in the streets.

We are in a corporate state. The issues and problems are no longer decided by us. As a matter of policy, we are quite alone and at each others' throats.

We are no longer players, and there is no meaningful opposition to the CS.

[marym625]

46. Very true

And well said. But do you think that can be accomplished before money is taken out of politics?

I am of the belief that we need a strong 3rd party. The Democratic party is too deep in the quagmire of corpocracy.

Thanks for the insight!

[Eleanors38]

58. A short answer: Who will take the money out?

That is the more fundamental question/answer.

The CS, being in charge of the legislative processes of this country, has no intention of relinquishing that control to anyone. To challenge that power requires much more soul-searching than choosing an issue from a wish list, as a poor child might peruse items in a dated Sears Roebuck catalogue. My views are measured and limited, but we are very near needing a revolution. (I find it disheartening that when there is discussion of "populism" and "anti-establishment politics," the Tea Party is most often cited.)

Sorry to be a downer, but we are arranging deck chairs.

Good to see another of your posts.

[marym625]

59. I agree with you

And I don't think for a second that it is a one issue fix. Damn, that would be nice. I do think, however, that some issues cannot be fixed until others are. I was mostly curious what people are thinking. There is so much wrong and so many posts about so many things that it's nearly impossible to gauge what is upper most on people's minds.

I honestly do believe we are past the point of no return. We either revolt or we lose everything. I have thought for the last few years we were close. Now I think it's too late.

And you're right about taking the money out. Look what happened with SJ RES 19.

Thank you so much for your input. And thanks for the kind comment. Nice to see you replying!

[Eleanors38]

68. I have mused politically to blank walls many times...

on the subjects of fundamental change. We are now two steps removed. It is not enough any longer to speculate on the parameters of revolution, we now must scramble for a notion of what community is since the I-net and the plunge into social atomization. Fortunately the 2 bell weathers of societal change -- the latest hand-held update, and advertising -- seem to have planed out into linear speed, size, more, faster, cheaper "innovations" on the one hand, and an omnipresent, dull irony on the other. These indicators reveal a bogging down in self-absorbed decadence at discount rates.

The bastards came to lay siege, and found the draw bridge down and the castle inhabitants bowed down to selfies and dawn-to-dusk crap humor. Certainly, the CS is moving to consolidate, but finding no opposition, they are confused as to how to further dress up the teck
stuff as more cutting edge, and how to make things more hepcat like WOW! you know?

The silver lining is very shortly, people will not only see their economic lives as shit all the way to the horizon, but they'll be Bored with it as well.
And boredom in this celebrity culture is dangerous. They sold us on tecky narcissism and stink irony, so they will have to deal with the consequences of spilt gasoline.

[marym625]

69. I love that Eleanor!

Very well said. I mean I hate the reality of what you said but love how you said it.

What popped in my mind as I read it was an app for social and political change. Something like Grinder for activists. Who knows, maybe people who normally wouldn't care might get involved because it's the new cool app.

I don't understand the very end of your reply. "And bi"? Yes, I am.

Thank you, again, for your insight.

I figured you were going to complete that thought but I didn't wait long enough.

[Eleanors38]

70. My dumb phone went on the fritz, should be corrected.

The app idea is interesting, if it can replicate the legitimacy of, say, a Walter Cronkite. I believe any effort should be accompanied by regular get togethers, the in-person variety. Instead of ponderous conventions, a series of local/regional social & working events (wk. ends?), with maybe one culminating yearly event. It doesn't all have to be in one locale, but many in one day can be tied together by the net, giving real time-certain unity, and instilling anticipation for the next gathering.

These are nuts & bolts, but something has to be done to break through the malaise.

[marym625]

71. I like it

We need a programmer.

[marym625]

129. I really like this app idea

I have been thinking about it since the other day. I'm a computer idiot. Do you know anything about computers? Anywhere we can go to get this done?

[stevenleser]

39. Pass/Other: Organizing groups that educate the people about the issues

Get the word out with facts about what policies work, which ones don't and why. What the benefits are of the good policies we want to see enacted and the disadvantages are of bad policies.

[marym625]

47. Another good point.

I am sorry I am unable to add any more choices.

I believe you are correct. But I also believe we have to get money out of politics and until we do that, we won't be able to fix anything or even educate like we should.

Thanks for your input!

[Jamaal510]

79. +1

[TBF]

42. All symptoms of the elephant no one wants to touch -

capitalism.

Until you take the profit motive away - completely - this is what you get. Competitiveness, greed, bribery, theft, pillaging of resources - the list goes on and on.

[marym625]

48. Oh capitalism sucks

But how can it even be addressed while corporations run politics, politicians and the media? And possibly, soon, the internet.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[TBF]

57. You've got it backwards my dear -

and it's distracting from the real issue.

But that's ok, carry on ...

[marym625]

60. Thanks, sweetums

I would appreciate an explanation instead of a condescending comment

[TBF]

61. I don't know what else I can say

to convince you that capitalism itself is the problem if you are determined to put up a smokescreen of random band-aids that you think might "fix" the country.

It's done - the oligarchy has won. Wall Street has already taken the money. Most of the multi-nationals are headquartered elsewhere. If you have any doubt about whether this was a bi-partisan effort you haven't checked the net worth of the members of Congress lately.

The dog and pony show continues for the deluded but the party is over for the majority of the country.

[marym625]

66. I am not putting up any smokescreen

Nor do I believe for a second that one thing is a fix all.

I believe they have won. I believe it is too late. I just have not gotten to the point I am willing to throw in the towel.

I wanted to find out what people are thinking. I wanted to gauge what people think is the most important, or at least more important, thing to address.

I put up a post a couple years ago that I unfortunately did not journal. It was about us having to do something right then or we are sunk, if we weren't already. I caught more shit than I ever have in decades of posting on different social media sites.

Rather than jumping into another cauldron, I decided to get some feedback. I had actually been too careful with some of my replies, not stating I do think it's too late for any conventional fix. But, as the replies to the OP started coming in ,I garnered the courage to just say it. Evidently more people believe it now than did a couple years ago.

I do appreciate your clarification. Thank you

[TBF]

72. Sure - see you on the streets

because that is what it is going to take.

Solidarity.

[CrispyQ]

54. Revoke corporate personhood.

Make corporations accountable to the communities they do business in, not just the shareholders. This site has lots of great articles on the issue.

Reclaim Democracy

Introduction to Corporate Personhood

Our Bill of Rights was the result of tremendous efforts to institutionalize and protect the rights of human beings. It strengthened the premise of our Constitution: that the people are the root of all power and authority for government. This vision has made our Constitution and government a model emulated in many nations.

But corporate lawyers (acting as both attorneys and judges) subverted our Bill of Rights in the late 1800′s by establishing the doctrine of “corporate personhood” — the claim that corporations were intended to fully enjoy the legal status and protections created for human beings.

We believe that corporations are not persons and possess only the privileges we willfully grant them. Granting corporations the status of legal “persons” effectively rewrites the Constitution to serve corporate interests as though they were human interests. Ultimately, the doctrine of granting constitutional rights to corporations gives a thing illegitimate privilege and power that undermines our freedom and authority as citizens. While corporations are setting the agenda on issues in our Congress and courts, We the People are not; for we can never speak as loudly with our own voices as corporations can with the unlimited amplification of money.

Read our draft constitutional amendment to revoke corporate constitutional “rights,” (published nearly a decade before the Citizens United v FEC ruling). See also Move to Amend’s proposed language.

Corporate power & influence is out of control & it's going to ruin our planet if we let it.

Getting money out of politics needs to be done, but I don't know how you go about it when those who can change the laws are the ones benefiting from the laws that need to be changed.



Good thread.

[marym625]

62. Great comment

You should make it a post.

Thanks for the links.

I honestly don't know where we go from here. When you have people from both parties agreeing that we need a revolution, though not necessarily for the same reasons or how to go about it, you know there are problems beyond repair.

Thank you!

[librechik]

55. give every family in the world a laptop and internet access--it'll be fixed in 30 years.

Probably cheaper than eternal war.

I guess we have to wait until they manage to get one on their own. Say 60 years.

I think that's too late.

[marym625]

63. I think 30 years is too late

Just a very scary time. I'm not looking forward to the near future.

Thank you

[librechik]

64. yeah, you're right--I was trying to be optimistic.

Welcome to DU!

[LWolf]

65. Several of the above.

There is no single, one-size-fits-all solution to anything.

[marym625]

67. of course not

I evidently was not clear enough in my post. I don't believe there is a one size fits all fix. I was just trying to find out what is most important to people.

Thank you

[20score]

75. It's not something that can be 'fixed' really, only mitigated. Magical, childish thinking.

So many problems are not addressed because people don't think critically or objectively. Whether it's evolution, global warming, the lies about economics told daily on Fox, etc., bigotry, religious zealotry, excusing police brutality or getting into stupid wars. People hold onto illusions that they should be ashamed of - and they do so sometimes violently.

Most of the right now hold many ideas that shape policy, that are demonstrably untrue. Many problems could be fixed if we demanded as much from adults, as we do from a seven year old told there is no Santa. And even though it is mostly the right, some of the left cannot be let off the hook. The reaction that some have to the NSA spying is a good example. Unbelievable the anger from some when confronted with facts they don't like. Same with overpopulation. Some on the left refuse to believe an obvious truth because they think it's all about over-consumption. As if the two are mutually exclusive. Makes me ill. All of it .

[marym625]

77. Magical, childish thinking

Yep, that about sums it up. Much too much of it for much too long.

The "I have nothing to hide" response to the NSA ILLEGAL spying makes me ill too. STUPID. Just plain, utterly, completely, ignorant and STUPID.

Over population was something we talked about being a problem when I was in elementary school, and I am old. The fact it has just fallen by the wayside is another example of greed as far as I can tell.

Thanks again for your input!

[peacebird]

76. Two term max for all politicians, repeal citizens united

[marym625]

78. Not sure what I think about the 2 term limits

for every office. Definitely repeal CU!

check out www.commoncause.org if you haven't already. That organization is fighting money in politics more than any other.

Thank you for you input!

[madville]

80. Two terms for Senators, maybe

Six terms for House members, 12 years each.

I would also support changing House and Senate terms to four years and voted on along with the presidential contest. Midterms are a waste of time and money, it's like around the clock campaign mode.

[justiceischeap]

141. That was going to be my reply but I would also add

banning lobbyists.

[marym625]

155. That's a good one!

I like that!

Thanks!

[Spider Jerusalem]

82. None of any of that will make the least bit of difference to any of the real, actual problems...

facing not just the USA but the world. The climate is fucked; South Florida and Louisiana will be underwater by mid-century; the Southwest is in potentially permanent drought conditions and reservoirs millions depend on are being depleted, along with groundwater reserves; agriculutural land that provides 20% of the USA's food is likely to become unviable before too long, and millions of people may end up displaced; the desperate rush to frack and stripmine every last bit of accessible tight oil and tar sands is only going to extend the coming decline of oil supplies by a few years to a decade(while making the climate impact worse by contributing yet more carbon); food and water insecurity, climate change, and potential fuel crises in the near-term future are going to drive global instability (I wouldn't be at all surprised to see another 2008-style crash within a decade). I'm not sure how electing yet more people with the same old tired and doomed ideas is going to make much of anything better or avert any of the very real problems that are approaching.

[marym625]

83. yep. and there's more

People are already shooting each other over water in Yemen. Cities in California are already running out of water. While the rest of the country is having record heat and drought, the northern Midwest is having record cold. The dangers they warned us about are already here. Not to even start talking about how the oil companies are ruining all the newly available waters, due to their greed and idiocy that caused all the glaciers to melt.

We have an educational system that is going backwards and has for decades. That is allows for the easily trainable, uneducated, masses that believe every sound bite it hears, including unions are bad and minimum wage has to be kept low or they will be out of a job.

Etc.

Yeah, I think it's too late

[MH1]

118. Well, aren't you just a little ray of sunshine?

Unfortunately I agree pretty much 100% with everything you wrote.

[Brigid]

92. Get the money out of politics.

Do that, and the rest becomes easier.

[marym625]

94. No doubt, you're right

But I do doubt we will be able to make that happen anytime soon.

Thank you for your input!

[Shankapotomus]

95. Money out of politics (nt)

💸

[lpbk2713]

101. Keep the GOP out of power.

They only represent the oligarchs.

[Maedhros]

102. Pssst! So do the Democrats...[n/t]

[marym625]

108. THANK YOU!

How the hell do people not see that? We now have a group of Obamabots and apologists thinking they're liberal.

[dionysus]

124. "they're"

[marym625]

126. Thank you

I prefer being corrected if I should make a stupid mistake. I appreciate that you pointed it out.

[dionysus]

127. any time. their versus they're is a pet peeve.

[marym625]

128. It is one of mine as well

Last edited Wed Sep 24, 2014, 08:11 AM - Edit history (1)

Was just moving too fast and didn't read before I posted. Accidents happen. Luckily, accidents like that can be corrected.

[baldguy]

110. It's bullshit like that which keeps people from voting for their own best interests.

Which makes the oligarchs perfectly happy.

[bigwillq]

139. This.

[hifiguy]

105. Three basic things

1. Money out of politics

2. End eternal corporate personhood - rights belong only to natural persons

3. Freedom from religion

[marym625]

107. If we could somehow accomplish

1 & 2, I think 3 would fall in line.

[MH1]

117. I picked overpopulation, but prerequisite to that is women's reproductive freedom

You will not have a solution to over population until you remove the use of pregnancy by men to control women.

[marym625]

119. Oh I like that

Thank you!

[liberal_at_heart]

132. money out of politics

[marym625]

133. Next poll

Will be HOW?!

Thank you

[liberal_at_heart]

134. good question. It will be hard to do as long as the two parties who benefit from

money in politics know that they are untouchable. Personally, I am a socialist and would love to see some more socialists run to kind of shake things up a bit and make some of those corrupt politicians start to sweat a little.

[marym625]

135. Same here.

I don't belong to the socialist party (though I have thought about it) but something has to be done. And good people running from other parties would help, not hurt.

Thanks for your thoughts!

[NaturalHigh]

137. Somebody Should Do Something About All the Problems

Why isn't anyone doing anything about all the problems? We're living in a time with super computers and underwater sea stations and million-dollar laboratories. And still, everyday when I watch the TV news shows I see all sorts of problems!

What are the scientists doing with all that technology? Just sitting on their patoots? Just yesterday there was another plane crash. Isn't that what we have radar for? Why isn't someone taking care of that?

And then there's all those people starving. You can't tell me that we can't figure out a way to feed them. What about all those high-energy vitamin supplements I read about? And what about the dehydrated space food? Someone has got to start putting this information to good use.

Somebody should get on the stick and start using all those high-powered electronic microscopes to cure cancer, that's what I think. There must be someone making money off of these diseases.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/somebody-should-do-something-about-all-the-problem,11018/

[marym625]

143. Are you the author?

[NaturalHigh]

144. No. I wish!

I just saw this thread and thought of that old story on The Onion.

[marym625]

147. It's a good one! Thanks for posting! eom

[Zorra]

140. An Inconvenient Truth: Only revolution can lead to taking the money out of politics.

The 1% will never allow their ownership of our government to be taken from them through a democratic electoral process that they control

The painful reality of our situation is that we either take our government back from them through direct action, or never get it back.

The global power of the financial centers is so great, that they can afford not to worry about the political tendency of those who hold power in a nation, if the economic program (in other words, the role that nation has in the global economic megaprogram) remains unaltered. The financial disciplines impose themselves upon the different colors of the world political spectrum in regards to the government of any nation. The great world power can tolerate a leftist government in any part of the world, as long as the government does not take measures that go against the needs of the world financial centers. But in no way will it tolerate that an alternative economic, political and social organization consolidate. For the megapolitics, the national politics are dwarfed and submit to the dictates of the financial centers. It will be this way until the dwarfs rebel . . .

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/ezln/1997/jigsaw.html

[marym625]

145. I would k&r this if I could

[Chisox08]

142. What about a mixture off all of the above

Starting with getting money out of politics.

[marym625]

146. as far as what has to be done

Yes, I think all of the above. But in this poll I was looking for what people think is the most important thing to tackle.

Thank you! (Southside Irish Catholic Sox fan )