Tornados
-
@approxinfinity said in Tornados:
I mean. I hear you. But just saying that i think advocating solution is much more important than blame.
The real solutions will never happen because they aren’t in the best interests of those in power who make the rules and policies. Getting money out of politics such as super PACs, corporate lobbying, and stuff like that. Congressmen make $174,000 per year. There’s no reason members of Congress should become millionaires off of that job. Having to maintain two residences (Washington DC and home district) should prevent politicians from becoming wealthy.
Second, term limits. Being a politician should not be a career. There’s no reason why someone who was first elected to national office in the 1960’s or 1970’s is still in office. This would also apply to the Supreme Court as well.
Third, age limits. There’s no reason we should be choosing between a 78 year old narcissist and an 81 year old with cognitive issues for the most powerful office in the world. In November, for the third election in a row, whoever gets elected will be the oldest elected president in US history.
4th, institute ranked choice voting. This allows more third party candidates to have a chance in local and statewide elections as well as Congressional elections.
But like I said, none of those things will ever happen in the US because those things don’t benefit those currently in power. Those currently in power didn’t get into federal level politics for benevolent reasons.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in Tornados:
The real solutions will never happen because they aren’t in the best interests of those in power who make the rules and policies.
I fear this is 100% correct.
Fraud and digital security is now such a big business, any dramatic decrease would harm an entire sector. They make enough money to lobby lawmakers to filibuster as long as possible, then craft impotent, exploitable laws.
It’s been like this for a long time in Pharma. Some say cancer treatments are too big of a business now for a true cure to be faithfully and vigorously pursued.
I don’t know if I believe that. I’d like to believe otherwise. But I do believe that there is strong evidence that all three branches of the government have become ethically and morally bankrupt. Not everyone, but even one person is too many.
These people are in trusted positions in our institutions. Some don’t take that trust seriously. They don’t care about conflicts of interest. They act as though they are entitled to whatever they can get away with. Leveraging loopholes, exploiting positions of power.
It’s despicable. And it’s not something new.
But it does seem to be epidemic (or maybe even celebrated), and that’s new.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 so, not to be offensive, but to be blunt, i hear you stating a lot of facts that are undoubtedly true, and positive steps that could be taken, and there is obviously value in having a grasp of reality, but when you go so far as saying “things will never change”… its like, what is the point in dilligently paying attention to details of the past only to assume that there is no positive path forward?
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 let me rephrase…. Lets assume we are Dr Strange and have identified the one reality where “we win”. How does it happen?
-
Term limits and reducing the influence of parties and PACs are fundamentally irreconcilable
-
@approxinfinity said in Tornados:
@Texas-Hawk-10 so, not to be offensive, but to be blunt, i hear you stating a lot of facts that are undoubtedly true, and positive steps that could be taken, and there is obviously value in having a grasp of reality, but when you go so far as saying “things will never change”… its like, what is the point in dilligently paying attention to details of the past only to assume that there is no positive path forward?
This is how younger generations feel when they look and see all the things their parents and grandparents were able to achieve by certain ages and those goals are completely out of reach for many Millennials and Gen-Z Americans.
If you want something practical that has a chance of happening, then raising the federal minimum wage to something in line with the median cost of living is a start. It’s been 15 years since minimum wage was increased and $7.25 an hour is not a livable wage anywhere in the US which is what minimum wage is supposed to be, the minimum liveable wage in the US.
-
@FarmerJayhawk terms limits should be the number 1 priority. @Texas-Hawk-10 you definitely have some valid points sir. But the system is part of the issue, very very few families have a parent that says home. Up until the late 90s most moms stayed at home and raised children now someone else raises our children most the time. The average week day I get a few hours with my kids as does my wife.
-
@approxinfinity I just rewatched Infinity War and Endgame earlier this week. They seem to be aging well.
I think the point of that story is that it is naive to think that complex problems can be solved with a simple solution, even with primeval, celestial power at your fingertips, so to speak. Real solutions are messy and hard and require sacrifice.
That last thing is the real kicker. Most American leadership is very sacrifice-averse. Too many leaders in the public sector and private sector avoid putting their own “skin in the game” at all costs. It’s all about playing the game with someone else’s skin in the game – make someone else make the sacrifice – avoid responsibility if something goes wrong, but position yourself to take credit if it goes well.
For businesses, it doesn’t matter what the margins are, Wall Street demands companies grow profits every quarter. It’s not acceptable to have the same profit as the previous quarter. If it doesn’t grow, it’s failure.
It’s a corrosive mix of hypocrisy, selfishness and greed.
If the younger generations are looking for good role models, they don’t have many options. People talk about ‘servant leadership’ but you just don’t see much of it these days.
-
@kjayhawks I totally disagree. If you turn over the Congress constantly you get 1) greater influence by lobbyists. It takes years to become a serious policy expert. And there aren’t term limits for lobbyists so they’re always going to be more knowledgeable than members on issues if you have term limits. 2) you’ll empower the administrative state. Same logic applies. Members of Congress without expertise can’t write clear, thorough laws so they write vague laws with gaps the administration fills in on a whim. The ACA is probably the best example of a very poorly written law that has spawned approximately a gazillion regulations, intended or not, from unelected bureaucrats. There will be more of them without an informed Congress. We need much more Congressional capacity, not less.
-
@FarmerJayhawk Term limits are absolutely necessary. I’ll agree that constant turnover isn’t good for stability, but neither are people serving 20+ years either. Set it at 12 years so that’s 2 terms for a senator or 6 terms for a representative. I’m sure people could argue all day about an exact amount of time, but that’s not the point. The point is not allowing people to be career politicians and get to a point where they’re owned by lobbyist groups and serving them instead of the people that elected them like they are supposed to do.
Lobbyists themselves aren’t the issue which is why I never specifically mentioned them. The issue is the money attached to lobbyist groups. Here in Texas, the only reason marijuana has not been legalized in any form at the state level is because of the private prison lobby lining the pockets of our representatives. I don’t know the exact numbers because it’s late and I’m too tired to look them up now, but there’s a ridiculous amount of people in prison, not jail, but prison in Texas for non-violent drug crimes such as possession of marijuana because private prisons have to have a minimum amount of occupancy to stay open and make money for the politicians who support them.
-
@FarmerJayhawk Without naming names, career politicians are a big part of the reason we are in the current mess. No one should be in office for decades, it’s perverse.
-
@dylans also without naming names, convicted criminals should not be eligible for office. And I haven’t been east of Kansas City since March.
-
Again, what does blame here do but divide us?
-
@approxinfinity It helps get to the root cause.
Edit - If there is no blame, there can be no accountability. If there is no admission of mistakes, no growth can occur and the cycle repeats in perpetuity.
-
Our Bipartisan system is a self sustaining duopoly. If you are Republican or Democrat you are as much alike as you are dissimilar.
We have ceded control to the lawmakers, to the stockbrokers, to the manufacturers and distributors, to the caretakers, to Big Pharma, to the advertisers.
We used to cede control to Nature or God or Big Unknown, when we had a more direct relationship with uncertainty.
Now we are all very small circuits or pawns, locked in on a very big board.
-
How did this thread…nevermind
-
@BShark as apt a name as any, this thread.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 I think you have the chain of causality backwards. New members are more beholden to special interests than more senior members. They haven’t been able to develop a unique relationship with their voters so they have to maintain close ties with the groups that supported them originally. For example, if someone were to challenge Senator Moran they’d have to get the support of AFP, Farm Bureau, the Chamber, etc to mount a real challenge. Jerry can go it alone because his constituents know and trust him. More recently, whether it’s JD Vance or Rafael Warnock, they have to pander to stick around. Their senior staff also come largely from special interests since they don’t have a network on the Hill yet.
-
@FarmerJayhawk said in Tornados:
@Texas-Hawk-10 I think you have the chain of causality backwards. New members are more beholden to special interests than more senior members. They haven’t been able to develop a unique relationship with their voters so they have to maintain close ties with the groups that supported them originally. For example, if someone were to challenge Senator Moran they’d have to get the support of AFP, Farm Bureau, the Chamber, etc to mount a real challenge. Jerry can go it alone because his constituents know and trust him. More recently, whether it’s JD Vance or Rafael Warnock, they have to pander to stick around. Their senior staff also come largely from special interests since they don’t have a network on the Hill yet.
I’m going to tell you right now, going down this rabbit hole isn’t going to be productive because this is something we will never see eye to eye on. You’re too tied into the that world because of your agriculture background while I’ve seen my profession fucked over countless times because of special interest groups lobbying for policies that actively harm public education. I’m not going to change your mind and you’re not going to change my mind on this matter so I’d suggest leaving this here.
-
@approxinfinity Yes most government officials should wear NASCAR type jackets with all the money that flows in thru the back door.
-
@BShark tornadoes ALWAYS lead to politics. Duh…
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in Tornados:
@FarmerJayhawk said in Tornados:
@Texas-Hawk-10 I think you have the chain of causality backwards. New members are more beholden to special interests than more senior members. They haven’t been able to develop a unique relationship with their voters so they have to maintain close ties with the groups that supported them originally. For example, if someone were to challenge Senator Moran they’d have to get the support of AFP, Farm Bureau, the Chamber, etc to mount a real challenge. Jerry can go it alone because his constituents know and trust him. More recently, whether it’s JD Vance or Rafael Warnock, they have to pander to stick around. Their senior staff also come largely from special interests since they don’t have a network on the Hill yet.
I’m going to tell you right now, going down this rabbit hole isn’t going to be productive because this is something we will never see eye to eye on. You’re too tied into the that world because of your agriculture background while I’ve seen my profession fucked over countless times because of special interest groups lobbying for policies that actively harm public education. I’m not going to change your mind and you’re not going to change my mind on this matter so I’d suggest leaving this here.
Ag, public finance, working on the Hill, in a state legislature, regularly meeting with lobbyists, did a PhD in education policy…
The Texas education wars are a good example. Special interests are playing on both sides (unions vs. business) in GOP primaries. It’s not special, there are hundreds of millions poured into elections from groups on all sides of the issue.
-
@FarmerJayhawk said in Tornados:
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in Tornados:
@FarmerJayhawk said in Tornados:
@Texas-Hawk-10 I think you have the chain of causality backwards. New members are more beholden to special interests than more senior members. They haven’t been able to develop a unique relationship with their voters so they have to maintain close ties with the groups that supported them originally. For example, if someone were to challenge Senator Moran they’d have to get the support of AFP, Farm Bureau, the Chamber, etc to mount a real challenge. Jerry can go it alone because his constituents know and trust him. More recently, whether it’s JD Vance or Rafael Warnock, they have to pander to stick around. Their senior staff also come largely from special interests since they don’t have a network on the Hill yet.
I’m going to tell you right now, going down this rabbit hole isn’t going to be productive because this is something we will never see eye to eye on. You’re too tied into the that world because of your agriculture background while I’ve seen my profession fucked over countless times because of special interest groups lobbying for policies that actively harm public education. I’m not going to change your mind and you’re not going to change my mind on this matter so I’d suggest leaving this here.
Ag, public finance, working on the Hill, in a state legislature, regularly meeting with lobbyists, did a PhD in education policy…
The Texas education wars are a good example. Special interests are playing on both sides (unions vs. business) in GOP primaries. It’s not special, there are hundreds of millions poured into elections from groups on all sides of the issue.
That’s the fucking problem, those hundreds of millions of dollars have much better uses than convincing some politician to push their agenda on the public that’s not in the best interests of the people they’re supposed to be representing. That’s money that could be used in their own communities to improve the overall quality of life in those places or to pay lower level employees better wages. So again, you’re never going to convince me that the money spent by billion dollar conglomerates on lobbying is a net positive. There’s a reason why the US is ranked near or at the bottom of 1st world countries in quality of healthcare and education, and those billions of dollars spent annually on lobbying by those industries is a big reason why.
Enjoy the last word on this though because I’m done responding to you on this topic.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 enjoy arguing with points I’m not making
-
Everybody’s right! Everybody’s wrong! 500 points to everyone!
-
@approxinfinity Thank you, Drew Carey!
-
@mayjay fun fact: Drew is my boss
-
@approxinfinity yay!! I finally got some points lol
