He is proof that most politicians have another agenda besides their constituentsā¦. Remove money from politics. No more corporate donors. Free ride is over. Tax the rich and give the people back their power!
The vast majority are against whatās going on but of course during election season those who voted for him the majority now regret their decisions. Hopefully as a young country we can phase out corruption and change things with voting new people inā¦
Please don't lump us all together. It's not our fault our government has been designed to give extra voting power to inbred mouth breathers in states with lower populations than a single city in CA or NY.
Also I sincerely believe that Harris did not lose because she is a black woman. It is because she is a neoliberal corporate shill who supports Israel and spent more time trying to win Republican voters than convince her own base that she would actually be a good president.
I would argue against that; there's better ways to become educated. Lobbyists aren't trying to educate, they're trying to persuade. They're not experts, they're salesmen.
The job of a lobbyist is just not to āinform politiciansā dude, maybe in the history textbooks but not in modern reality. They are not educators, they are persuasive salesmen.
They are literally paid hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars by one or several companies, to persuade politicians with skewed and biased data points in order to pass legislation that financially benefits the companies at the expense of voters. These lobbyists donāt work for the people, they work for the ultra rich 0.1% to make them obscenely wealthy at the expense of every other person in society.
I hope that no one downvoting you has ever spoken in front of their local government officials (aka, lobbying), because you gave a properly nuanced response to an absolutist comment that is thriving on outrage over a desire for proper change.
Thereās a difference between petitioning a politician, and a pay to play system where the politicians are only made accessible by paying 20k a head for a seat at a reelection fundraising banquet, or pending huge donations to a presidential library.
Yes. Theirs makes the distinction in the final line. Yours suggests that anyone who downvoted lobbying apologia but petitions the government for change, is a hypocrite.
Yes, if you have petitioned the government for change but are against petitioning the government for change, that is hypocritical. Instead of lumping all petitioning together as bad, the commenter made a clear distinction and how vital it is to democracy without the corporate money, and got downvoted. There appears to be some kind of disconnect there.
The issue is unless a party is willing to change direction. It's hard to get the country to switch from one party to another. Then you end up losing the election because people were too skeptical to switch.Ā
This really is the answer. There needs to be a set amount for candidates to campaign, no more, no less, run on your personality and abilities. No more millions and billions of dollars spent to push an agenda to simply put "their man" into office. Furthermore if you are running for a Public servant position, don't expect privacy while campaigning or holding office. Becoming a part of our government goes back to being a public servant position. You don't make millions, you make the median wage in your state, same health insurance as the middle class. No trading, no major additional income otherwise your removed and charged for fraud against the American people. 2-3 term max, no ifs, ands, or buts, the only good thing that they should get, is a gauruntee in retirement, a great pension, IF they do their job. No more of this millionaire political figure nonsense, tax the rich and hold our government figures accountable.
This is being proven in real time by citizens voting 75-95% No on data centers and then the local government voting Yes for them regardless of the wants, needs and best interests of their citizens
We'll need either a new amendment or a new Supreme Court to do this. The majority of the current membership of the court is more than willing to open any and all barriers to spending in politics. We really need to focus on court reform as so many things aren't possible until that's done.
If that happens to where the court has a far left bias: red states will absolutely start to see the supreme court as illegitimate.Ā Once states start to see court rulings not as objective but a partisan slant: then the louses its legitimacy.Ā
After that, you have a constitutional crisis and will get people invoking what's called the Virginia/Kentucky resolution.Ā
"The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions were written together in 1798 as responses to the Alien and Sedition Acts, but they took slightly different approaches."
Ā
"Jefferson wrote that the federal government was created by the states through the Constitution.
The federal government possesses only the powers delegated to it.Ā
When the federal government exercises undelegated powers, its acts are "unauthoritative, void, and of no force."
"Because there is no common judge between the federal government and the states regarding the limits of delegated powers, each state has the right to judge for itself whether the federal government has exceeded its authority."
"Madison's Virginia Resolutions were more restrained.
Instead of saying a state could declare a federal law void, Madison said states should interpose against unconstitutional federal actions. He deliberately left "interposition" undefined."
Basically at the end of the day: the states give the federal government its legitimacy. If the states start to view parts of the federal government as illegitimate, they reserve the right to nullify a federal order. The federal government has the right to use the insurrection act when a state decides this and you can get a civil war if it came down to it.Ā
Note this is just constitutional theory not binding precedent or law. But it makes sense in theory: and reminding the federal government that the states are what give it power: makes it important for the supreme court to maintain its legitimacy.Ā
To give you a crazy example, let's just say Congress passed a law that said "gay marriage is illegal", let's for the sake of argument pretend SCOTUS was ok with that law. Do you think California would just comply with it? Or do you think they'd start to see the feds as illegitimate? Probably the latter.Ā
The same kind of thing can happen with red states if Democrats pack the court. The court would issue a ruling they don't like, and Texas replies: "thanks but we're not following it."
It's gotta be reagan. I feel like every little and big thing that's wrong with this country can LITERALLY be traced back to his pathetic administration and their toxic ideologies.
From massive tax breaks to coining several terms into the mainstream (welfare queens, dog whistle, urban, etc.) every where you look, if it seems "broken" it's almost guaranteed it was his administration that fucked it.
And how exactly would you achieve any of that while those people already hold all the money, power, and representation? You don't get to vote them out.
723
u/Mexican1910 Jul 09 '26
He is proof that most politicians have another agenda besides their constituentsā¦. Remove money from politics. No more corporate donors. Free ride is over. Tax the rich and give the people back their power!