SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Tuesday February 19 2019, @05:14PM
from the how-many-candidates-are-there-now? dept.
from the how-many-candidates-are-there-now? dept.
"Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)........is launching a second run for the White House in 2020." breitbart.com/politics/2019/02/19/bernie-sanders-2020-bid
"Reaction to the news was split......with some supporting the 77-year-old and others upset with the move." foxnews.com/politics/trump-campaign-pokes-fun-at-bernie-sanders-2020-announcement-as-reaction-splits-on-candidacy
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Bernie Sanders Announces White House Bid
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 155 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
And tomorrow will be like today, only more so.
-- Isaiah 56:12, New Standard Version
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 19 2019, @10:09PM (8 children)
With what would you replace it, friend? Monarchy? Rotating rule by whoever tops Forbes' list of richest Americans [forbes.com] each year? Gladitorial combat amongst those who wish to lead?
Do tell.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Insightful) by loonycyborg on Tuesday February 19 2019, @10:38PM (3 children)
It's already turning into monarchy. Bushes, clintons, on my.. And no president can win without expensive campaign funded by the richest people. It's not like I'm suggesting any revolutions but people should participate in government's work more actively than with elections. We need to move all world's government closer to things like direct democracy and Swaraj [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Tuesday February 19 2019, @11:13PM (2 children)
The president (at least here in the US) does not the whole government make. In fact, the Congress is (although they have tended to abrogate their responsibilities over the past few decades) intended to be co-equal with the Executive branch.
Direct democracy is fine for many purposes. However, where it falls down pretty regularly is in the protection of minorities, whether they be ethnic, political, social and/or geographic.
The issues with the US system of government isn't the system per se. The issues stem from the lack of a broader range of individuals, ideas and debates caused by the need for large sums of money to successfully compete in elections.
Mandatory public funding of elections, strict limits on lobbying and strong rules against "revolving door" governance would go a long way to fix such issues.
Do I have all the answers? No. However, it's pretty clear that the unrestricted flow of money into our political system tilts power strongly in favor of a small group of individuals and corporations. Removing that flow of money is a critical piece to any meaningful reforms.
Sadly, those empowered to make such reforms are the very people who benefit the most from the current system.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by RandomFactor on Tuesday February 19 2019, @11:48PM
While this is in no wise invalidating what you are saying, I would argue that congress was intended to be the preeminent branch.
В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
(Score: 4, Informative) by fyngyrz on Wednesday February 20 2019, @05:06PM
The term is oligarchy. [wikipedia.org]
--
What I if told you
you read the previous line wrong
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:21AM
At this point, I think our best option is to randomly select a citizen each year. Perhaps secretly exclude anyone who is a member of a political party. Strictly police the emoluments clause so that President-for-a-year doesn't abuse the position for personal gain.
Either that or just give it to Judge Judy for life.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 20 2019, @09:21AM
Yes, yes, yes. The prize, however, must be putting the winner out of her/his misery, that's the only way to make sure you don't end being led by a psychopath.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:59PM (1 child)
Dictatorship of the proletariat according to the Transitional Plan (the one that deals with the Death Agony of Capitalism), which should give way to a kind of federated libertarian socialism once counterrevolution has died out.
Of course, the idea of socialism in one country is bunk, and so the dictatorship of the proletariat must be put into power by the process of permanent revolution.
My estimate is that a socialist culture will begin to emerge after 40 years of wandering in the desert of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the future history of Star Trek (between the Bell Riots and N-Day) also roughly agrees, so this must simply be the way it is done.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:22PM
I guess someone hasn't read his Santayana, or at least hasn't taken it to heart.
Lord Acton [wikipedia.org] pegged it, and long before the numerous failed attempts at creating a socialist paradise through revolution and the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat."
That's not to say that capitalism coupled with democracy or (small 'r') republicanism are the best systems. They are, as Mr. Churchill rightly pointed out:
I don't pretend to have all the answers, but it's clear that as long as there is scarcity, there will be those who will seek to control more resources than others. As such, it makes more sense (and fetttered capitalism along with democracy has done much better at this than any other system we've tried so far) to attempt to create a world without scarcity, where we all may create the lives and meaning that we choose.
Is that a pipe dream? Maybe. Will we achieve such a society without upheaval and violence? Probably not. Is it a worthy goal? Most certainly.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr