Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Lime
None of that really. Why work within a broken system?
Example : ending the filibuster. Who cares? That is a short term solution that will be exploited and then worked around after no more than one term. The system needs some very foundational changes.
Break PAC voting. Break lobbies. Set term limits for everything. Remove voting for law enforcement, (voting for a sheriff? Is this the old west?). Outlaw 'for profit' incarceration. Expand the power of the IRS to come down on all levels of government conflict of interest with serious consequences.
Go all out and re-write the constitution, which is an absolute dinosaur. The system is so lawyered up, there is no movement available.
It doesn't bother anyone that all we hear about is the issue of the moment, and root causes are never addressed?
The news is all about things like the filibuster. Who gives a ####. Attack what made these stop-gap motions necessary. When I said breaking gridlock I meant bigger. It would help Canada and the UK if the US can invent and lead us all to a way of ending party voting blocks. If senators voted for their individual constituency, how many problems would disappear? Use your big brains America! Come on!
Would it require a grass roots movement supported by the President to do anything? Yes. But Trump almost did it, and he is an idiot.
|
Not sure how you are going to get a grass roots movement when the US is so divisive on virtually all these things that you are pointing out.
As for Trump, I am not sure exactly what he also did, legislatively (and within the bounds of the law)? Beyond appointing Scotus judges, which was within his right to do so - the GOP Senators basically ####ed over democracy by refusing to even consider confirming Garland when Obama had 9 months left and then rammed through Comey-Barrett in under a month.
Just go and rewrite the Constitution? That's never, ever going to happen
I get the frustration, but you can't even get people to agree on facts, much less changing the US constitution.
One party is at least interested in a democratic process, imo, but you need two parties. When you don't have that, that's not democracy, that's authoritarianism...Which is what Trump aspired to.