Agree that Fauci should disappear from view because at this point, everyone is tired of him. He's become too polarizing to be effective in his role and needs to be gone.
Rolo sighting
- Thread starter kougkurt
- Start date
Agree that Fauci should disappear from view because at this point, everyone is tired of him. He's become too polarizing to be effective in his role and needs to be gone.
The country would be the exponentially better if Anthony Fauci retired.
To be fair, it would be exponentially better if everyone in his general age cohort retired. 70 or older? GTFO.
No issue with that. Especially septuagenarian and octagenarian politicians who continue to get fat at the trough of corruption in the swamp.
Both sides of the aisle.
Agree but won’t matter who is giving the info. In all seriousness, had you heard of Fauci before covid and was anyone critical of the work he did?
Oh that is where the reform has to take place . Limit terms . Serve three terms get out . There is no reason grassley or pelosi need to be serving . If they wish to serve in a different capacity… great .
Oh and get away from lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court.
Term limits and members of Congress having to abide by every law they enact (no exemptions) would clean up this country in a hurry.
The insider trading that goes on should be enough to have the peasants in front of the halls of Congress with torches and pitchforks.
honestly, there is so much malfeasance at every level of government from the state level up, it makes me wonder what its going to take for people to vote them out and mandate term limits. What is actually going to move the needle for middle America? The insider trading, 50 years in congress, going from middle class to 1% for every congressperson, rules for thee but not for we, etc etc.
One more log for this fire: accepting kickbacks, contributions, or outright payments from lobbyists and corporate interests is added to the definition of treason.
If people quit voting for the PARTY and start voting for the PERSON. A utopian pipe dream, I know. But if there were no political parties it would force politicians to have an actual original thought and force the American people to actually pay attention for once.
Never happen, too much money involved...
And most of the people/companies who have that money don’t want people to pay attention…they want them to do what they’re told.
Lol... you're going to have to go back a hell of a lot further than just Scalia. That shit has been going on for generations.
Since we're bringing in the Supreme Court...the other thing that needs to be reversed is the idea that corporations and organizations (specifically political parties) have their own constitutional rights. They shouldn't, and any rights of the corporation/organization certainly should not trump those of the individual.
The biggest problem in our country is that too many people don't want to "know" their legislators and prefer to keep it simple and just vote R or D. What's really insane is that at the local and state level, most legislators are great if you can get them one on one. Sometime the politics is still stupid, but in general, I've enjoyed my conversations with my state legislators. More recently, there are more "issues" that have become more R or D oriented that makes it more awkward though.
My biggest disappointment in Kansas is our attorney general. When he was in the state legislature, he was a charismatic, thoughtful guy that looked like a future governor that I could be excited about. Since winning the AG position and being poisoned by high level politics, he is a pathetic little pawn who spouts whatever the puppeteer with his hand up his ass tells him to. People can talk about the old farts and they are a problem, but the truth is that we really need a clean slate.
Nah, the biggest problem is the lack of integrity by elected officials. The party line voting is obscene. I'm sure I could have a great conversation with people across the political aisle from me, and then turn around and watch them vote with no conscience or ethics on something they just told me they oppose or don't have an opinion on, simply because they value their "political career" over doing right by their constituents.
Why don't they have rights? Is it ONLY individuals that have rights to free speech, rights of assembly, to petition the government? Where do you draw the line?
Is a married couple allowed to have rights or not? How about a family, say four brothers that run a small business? How about a 15 person gardening club, do they not have rights? Where is the line as to who has rights and who does not? Is it simply the ones you do not like, do not agree with?
I am certainly not a fan of all the $$$ in politics, but when it comes to who/what has freedom of speech rights, I think we need to err on the side of inclusion, not exclusion.
Because a business is a created entity. Four brothers that run a small business each individually have rights. A married couple individually have rights. In fact, when you bestow constitutional rights to businesses, you are giving them extra rights. You end up giving them the rights of the individual person, and then treating the business as a human, you give the individual that own the business rights.
We draw lines all the time. Who can vote. Who can drive. How fast we can drive. Where we can drive. Who can smoke. What the can smoke. Who owns property. Who is allowed into clubs. I could go on and on an on, but I am not because if you do not see the difference between you, me, and a McDonald's restaurant, then you and I will never see eye to eye.
I think that businesses should have "rights" to some degree but that in general, the rights of a business should be superceded by the rights of an individual if it can be proved that protecting a business harms someone's constitutional rights.
One of the reasons that I dislike unions is watching them stomp all over the rights of companies and other employees when there is a strike. I was sitting at the airport one time in a cell phone lot and the neighboring aircraft manufacturing plant had a strike going on. Some flipping a-hole with a stopwatch was holding up every car entering into the parking lot for whatever length of time that some idiot judge had agreed was a reasonable delay......which was creating a 1/2 mile long backup of people waiting as long as an hour in that line to just go do their jobs. People holding companies hostage over labor disagreements soured me on unions. Unfortunately, the area that I live in is so poisoned by the taint of union membership that we've lost tens of thousands of jobs to other parts of the country because companies have decided to do their business elsewhere.
In a case like the above, I think the company should be able to demonstrate that their right to freedom of movement was being harmed. However, union money is so powerful that they leave instead of fight for it.
Unions for persons employed in the public sector should be illegal. Teachers, police officers, etc... Having a guild that sets and arbitrates wages and benefits is one thing, having a corporate arm that can stranglehold necessary services is another.
I never said that the corporation's rights trump the rights of an individual, just that they do have rights, such as free speech. Specifically free speech. If Gates, Zuckerberg, Dorsey, etc are allowed to spend unlimited dollars to share their opinions, why shouldn't any other entity enjoy those same rights? Is not the corporation/organization subject to all the rules and regulations imposed on them by governments? Are they supposed to not have a say in that? Taxation without representation was a big deal a few hundred years ago, but I guess that is an antiquated concept.
When you use the term "bestow constitutional rights" it indicates that you think their is no mention of such rights stated in the constitution, thus they don't exist. As a reminder, there is precedent for the Supreme Court granting such rights for things not stated in the constitution. Abortion and gay marriage are two things that immediately come to mind, and I am sure there are others.
Could not agree more with you on this. Having government employees negotiating with governors that simply want their votes in the next election is a huge conflict of interest.
Police unions are a massive stain on justice and the biggest reason for corruption in law enforcement. They should be abolished immediately.
Teacher unions are by far the absolute worst. I am against it all no matter what the political party. Knowing that an elementary school counselor can make close to $150k (30+ years of service but shouldn't it cap out, I mean a friggin elementary COUNSELOR?) per year basically says that they are being paid for their votes at the expense of all tax payers. They are also the evil empire that is maintaining their stance on forcing children to wear masks and get vaccinated. And these morons are allowed to dictate who teaches our children?
The corporation/organization should derive its rights from the individuals that make it up, not the other way around.
Unions are a fine example. Say I apply for a position, and I'm the best qualified candidate. I can only accept it if I agree to join the union, so the union's right to choose has now superseded mine. And I'm not even working for the union, so why do they get to choose anyway? Why does the union get to say that if I want this job, I'm required to pay them to represent me...even if I don't want them to, I disagree with what they're doing, or I think they're doing a bad job?
The Washington State primary election system is another example. When I first started voting, you could vote for whoever you wanted in a primary. A republican for president, democrat for governor, and an independent for senator. Then they threw out that system because it violated the parties' right to choose their candidate. Instead, you had to pick whether you wanted to vote a republican ballot or a democrat ballot, and you could then only vote D or R. What about my right to pick a candidate? In a publicly funded election, why should I have to choose a party? If the dems and repubs want to pick their candidate, let them do it in a party caucus that they pay for. This method got retired when they brought in the top 2 primary system, but the old way was still better. In the top 2 system, we're virtually locked into either a D or an R for every position that matters. There's little chance for anyone else to make the general ballot...which is why the two parties agreed on using this system.
A different flavor of disenfranchisement is the electoral college. The winner take all system that exists in 48 states needs to go away. Electoral votes should be distributed proportionally. Under the current system, your vote is essentially meaningless if you live outside of King/Snohomish.
Agree completely that the electoral college is worthless and terrible. In 40 or so states, your vote is a waste of time. I still do it every time, but I do it knowing that it's meaningless because too many people blindly vote R or D and most states have no mechanism to recognize "minority party" votes.
I remember working late on election day in 2000 and got my vote in for Bush right before the polls closed. On my way home, with 10% of the votes in, the media was already announcing that Gore had won the state of Washington. In Kansas, I knew that a vote against Trump was meaningless because all of the orange worshipping hypocrites were going to usher him in easily. It didn't matter that I was willing to vote for a different person, the results were predetermined. Dumb.
I remember working late on election day in 2000 and got my vote in for Bush right before the polls closed. On my way home, with 10% of the votes in, the media was already announcing that Gore had won the state of Washington. In Kansas, I knew that a vote against Trump was meaningless because all of the orange worshipping hypocrites were going to usher him in easily. It didn't matter that I was willing to vote for a different person, the results were predetermined. Dumb.
That’s why neither candidate spent any effort campaigning in Washington. Or oregon. Even California got little attention considering it’s size. It was a foregone conclusion that all 3 would go blue.
Make the distribution of electoral votes proportional, and campaign strategy changes completely.
