To not derail the thread, feel free to have the last word

Are registered Democratic women the only political affiliation of women who have (need) abortions, or as you say "murder the unborn"? If so, cite some evidence that all women who have abortions are Democrats.

The discussion was about political policies

Gotcha. Just gassing again. :mask:

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Shedding light on these failures of governmental implementation is crucial, but you asked for a mechanism...

Sanders was the best chance I've seen in my lifetime...

Mechanism?

I do not know. All oversight has been rendered toothless by those needing it. What is needed is for enough elected officials to act in the best interest of the nation instead of self-interest. The problem, as the judge articulated nicely, is that those folk may not even believe or recognize that they've ever been faced with such a choice.

All oversight has been rendered toothless by those needing it. What is needed is for enough elected officials to act in the best interest of the nation instead of self-interest. The problem, as the judge articulated nicely, is that those folk may not even believe or recognize that they've ever been faced with such a choice. — creativesoul

Isn't Amurica great?!

What is needed is for enough elected officials to act in the best interest of the nation instead of self-interest. — creativesoul

Well, yeah, but that opportunity has already been headed off by having such a high threshold of expensive and tightly regulated media coverage required to even stand a chance of being elected.

It's another of those systematic failures. The sheer volume of people whom a national politician needs to persuade means that both finance and media are absolutely essential.

This puts financiers and media moguls in charge of who can even stand a chance of getting elected.

The only solutions I can see are to forget national politics entirely - get things done at local level (where media need not be involved), or to bypass media by mass protest, or to simply make existing political agendas impossible by refusal to comply.

You may be aware of the testimony at the Jan 6 commission by Rusty Bowers, a Republican electoral official, who stood fast against Trump's demands to help with falsifying the 2020 election results, and suffered greatly as a consequence. His was very moving testimony and an example of stalwart devotion to duty.

Which makes it even more distressing that, in a post-appearance interview, Bowers said that if Trump were to stand in 2024, he'd vote for him!

Gone are the days when one could presume that 'reason will prevail' or 'the truth will out'. American Republicanism really is a brain-eating virus or profound cognitive disorder, a symptom of a society that is literally destroying itself.

So junk bonds, asset-stripping, war-profiteering, etc, as distinct from straight economics where there is production or services that folks want. — unenlightened

add cryptocurrencies to that list.

Which makes it even more distressing that, in a post-appearance interview, Bowers said that if Trump were to stand in 2024, he'd vote for him! — Wayfarer

After watching Biden as president it's a reverse Sophie's choice I fear.

American Republicanism really is a brain-eating virus or profound cognitive disorder, a symptom of a society that is literally destroying itself. — Wayfarer

We'll keep that in mind.

What is needed is for enough elected officials to act in the best interest of the nation instead of self-interest.
— creativesoul

Well, yeah, but that opportunity has already been headed off by having such a high threshold of expensive and tightly regulated media coverage required to even stand a chance of being elected. — Isaac

There is no "tightly regulated media coverage" of an American election. Elections are most certainly expensive, but that fact is not due to an inherent flaw in the American system of government.

It's another of those systematic failures.

To quite the contrary, that fact(that American elections are expensive) counts as prima facie evidence that the rules to safeguard the country against government bribery have been broken. If those rules were enacted they would serve their purpose to prevent wealthy private citizens from rewarding the lawmakers for writing laws that would ensure the wealthy donors made even more money while knowingly quantifiably injuring huge swathes of American citizens.

Emoluments. Campaign finance. Conflicts of interest.

The system guards against government bribery; the accumulation of against excessive power in too few hands; inadequate representation; abuse of power; and usurpation of the people's power to freely choose between individuals who have what's best for the overwhelming majority of Americans in mind during any and all deliberation/discussion about potential bills(legislation) or any other potential government action effected/affected the American people.

When preventative safety measures deliberately built into the system are blatantly ignored, it is not a flaw inherent to the system if the neglection of the rule results in exactly what the rule guards against.

The sheer volume of people whom a national politician needs to persuade means that both finance and media are absolutely essential.

How elections are currently funded goes against the system's safeguards mentioned heretofore. Campaign finance. Conflicts of interest. Emoluments.

Liberals who apologize for the system are just slightly milder ushers of the full coming of American fascism. America was founded on genocide and the protection of the rich. It has now offshored it's genocide and remains militantly protective of the rich. The constitution was fundamentally written to protect against democracy. It is working.

Liberals — Streetlight

You had me entirely captivated by your wry wit...

...all the way up to there...

That's fine. But the American system is working exactly as intended, and those who think otherwise know nothing about either America nor systems. @Issac was wrong in one thing: what is happening now is not an index of systematic failure, but of systematic success.

The Republican Party is not a clear and present danger to the United States, but the ultimate expression of the United States in its unblemished purity. You cannot be a danger to what you fundamentally embody.

You're an avid reader. Read for yourself. It's not too long. Very plainly stated.

There is no "tightly regulated media coverage" of an American election. — creativesoul

I'm sorry, are we on the same planet? The one where a journalist is currently facing inhumane imprisonment for his media coverage? The one where the government are actively instructing social media platforms on what content to ban? The one where virtually all media in America is owned by just six companies and five of them are effectively owned by two asset management companies?

That planet, is the one where there's no tightly regulated media?

When preventative safety measures deliberately built into the system are blatantly ignored, it is not a flaw inherent to the system if the neglection of the rule results in exactly what the rule guards against. — creativesoul

If a system cannot provide adequate means for it's integrity then it is a failed system. But...

what is happening now is not an index of systematic failure, but of systematic success. — Streetlight

...is absolutely right. I should not be talking in terms of system failure when the intent has actually been met. I should talk instead in terms of system atrocity.

The one where virtually all media in America is owned by just six companies and five of them are effectively owned by two asset management companies? — Isaac

IS NOT THE RESULT OF TOO MUCH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION

The one where a journalist is currently facing inhumane imprisonment for his media coverage? — Isaac

Unaware of this case.

The one where the government are actively instructing social media platforms on what content to ban? — Isaac

Freedom of speech is not unfettered. Especially when so few have so much power over what gets put into the public sphere for it's political consumption.

THIS WORLD

IS NOT THE RESULT OF TOO MUCH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION — creativesoul

No, it's the result of the American system working exactly as intended, regulation or not.

The one where virtually all media in America is owned by just six companies and five of them are effectively owned by two asset management companies? — Isaac


IS NOT THE RESULT OF TOO MUCH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION — creativesoul

No. It's the result of exactly the right amount of government legislation to achieve that state of affairs.

Unaware of this case. — creativesoul

Assange.

Freedom of speech is not unfettered. Especially when so few have so much power over what gets put into the public sphere for it's political consumption. — creativesoul

Restrictions on freedom of speech are not the issue, the issue is who wields that power.

The one where virtually all media in America is owned by just six companies and five of them are effectively owned by two asset management companies? — Isaac


IS NOT THE RESULT OF TOO MUCH GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION
— creativesoul

No. It's the result of exactly the right amount of government legislation to achieve that state of affairs. — Isaac

American elections are expensive. We agree there. I'm not seeing the relevance that the above has to that agreement.

:brow:

Unaware of this case.
— creativesoul

Assange. — Isaac

Not clear of the actions he performed or the charges he faces.

Freedom of speech is not unfettered. Especially when so few have so much power over what gets put into the public sphere for it's political consumption.
— creativesoul

Restrictions on freedom of speech are not the issue, the issue is who wields that power. — Isaac

Who gets to be the final arbiter of truth?

Unaware of this case.
— creativesoul

Assange.
— Isaac

Not clear of the actions he performed or the charges he faces. — creativesoul

I for one, am thankful for the DNC leak regarding the deceptive practices in the 2020 primaries. I knew it all along. Clinton Obama season had 29 or so public debates. Clinton Sanders had 4 or 5. The debates showed that Sanders' support increased and Clinton's took a tumble afterwards.

I'm not naive. I'm vested. I am doing everything in my power to improve and/or help what I can, when I can, and how I can. The framework has been ignored when it comes to safeguards against the bribery of elected officials. The Constitution has been violated. The results of those violations are what you seem to be railing against. I'm suggesting a sober look at how those issues arose. You seem bent upon damning America for it. I'm bent upon fixing it, and I'm nudging and/or gesturing towards how to do it.

American elections are expensive. We agree there. I'm not seeing the relevance that the above has to that agreement. — creativesoul

It means that anyone wanting to run needs lots of money. That places restrictions on who can run and on what demands will be made of them. Securing finance is never free of constraint.

Not clear of the actions he performed or the charges he faces. — creativesoul

The US government is trying to prosecute him for espionage for revealing information about their war crimes to the electorate.

Who gets to be the final arbiter of truth? — creativesoul

I don't understand why this question has all of a sudden become an issue. Caught between the right-wing individualist answer "we do", and the current trending answer "the government".

We already have a system of expertise measuring in place where previous experts judge whether newly minted experts are, in fact, sufficiently knowledgeable about their field. It's not exactly flawless, but it's crazy to speak as if the question has only just arisen.

A professor of medicine is qualified to speak to the truth of facts about medicine. A professor of international relations is qualified to speak to the truth of matters regarding international relations. A professor of military strategy is qualified to speak to the truth of military strategy.

I don't understand what the reasons were for people abandoning trust in that system, but to pretend it never even existed is madness.

No, it's the result of the American system working exactly as intended, regulation or not. — Streetlight

In order to know that you'd have to be privy to the framers' thought and belief. That's quite a presupposition.

In order to know that you'd have to be privy to the framers' thought and belief. — creativesoul

No. I do not give one single damn about the lost daddy syndrome that Americans have. The framers were rapists and slave owners and what they thought means less than nothing. The constituion is largely a decorative piece that happens to be interpreted by another set of rapists and power mongers who are worth even less. America is shaped by those who govern, and those those govern are quite happy to let Americans - and the rest of the world - eat dirt so long as they accure power and wealth.

It means that anyone wanting to run needs lots of money. That places restrictions on who can run... — Isaac

Yes. That's a problem, not because it costs so much. How current campaigns are financed is the problem. That means violates the Constitution.

Again, not a problem with the system, but rather with improper implementation.