SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Trump impeached for 'inciting' US Capitol riots:
The US House of Representatives has impeached President Donald Trump for "incitement of insurrection" at last week's Capitol riot.
Ten Republicans sided with Democrats to impeach the president by 232-197.
He is the first president in US history to be impeached twice, or charged with crimes by Congress.
Mr Trump, a Republican, will now face a trial in the Senate, where if convicted he could face being barred from ever holding office again.
But Mr Trump will not have to quit the White House before his term in office ends in one week because the Senate will not reconvene in time.
Mr Trump will leave office on 20 January, following his election defeat last November to Democrat Joe Biden.
The Democratic-controlled House voted after several hours of impassioned debate on Wednesday as armed National Guard troops stood guard inside and outside the Capitol.
[...] Impeachment charges are political, not criminal.
Also at Newsweek, c|net, Al Jazeera, Washington Post.
[Ed Note - The linked article has been revised since submission. The quoted text has been revised accordingly. - Fnord]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:23PM (57 children)
Imma trying to stay alive for at least 20 years and see how the day is remembered in the future.
It'll either be the day America became a laughingstock, or a hypocrite, or both. After this, we have zero business lecturing other countries about democracy or what form their government should take. And we definitely have no business claiming our Constitution is some kind of holy document, or that it has any kind of functional "checks and balances". The thing should be thrown out and a new one drawn up, preferably with a parliament this time. The concept of popularly electing a President, separately from the elections for legislators, obviously doesn't work in real life.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:37PM (1 child)
I kinda think this event will be remembered as the inflection point in American history.
Rose onto global dominance after WWII, decline into a banana republic after this date.
It's an "interesting" time we live in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:43PM
Yes but THE greatest Banana republic the World has ever seen. Still No. 1 baby!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:02AM (51 children)
Parliament means you get a mediocre yes-man for the desires of corrupt politicians.
If you have a weird desire for "normal", meaning that your corporate overlords fully approve and have nothing to say while you're getting robbed blind, that might be to your taste. Ugh. We don't need that kind of "normal", even if it is strangely comforting to have the talking heads all peaceful.
We had something more parliamentary, with senators and electors chosen by state legislators. We could go back to that... but people hated it. Every idiot wants to vote, and we even banned the literacy tests and taxes that used to block clueless people. We have drug-addicted homeless bums voting.
We certainly could make improvements.
One fix would be to do the elections as multiple rounds of randomized approval voting. Split lists of candidates according to the binomial distribution or Pascal's triangle, so that the list is typically cut near the midpoint but isn't so predictable. Each round of voting gets rid of approximately half the candidates, but the unpredictability limits the bad effects of strategic voting. Require the same of voters, on penalty of the vote being tossed out, with each ballot randomly marked with the required number of candidates to approve. (so I must vote for 4 out of 11, and you must vote for 7 out of 11, and somebody else must vote for 6 out of 11, and so on...) After the vote we determine, by random chance, what portion of the candidates to toss out. If more than one remain, we vote again. So the number of candidates in each round of voting might be 30, 17, 6, 5, 2, 1. On a different occasion starting from the same 30 it might go 30, 14, 7, 4, 3, 1.
Another fix would be to have our bicameral legislature vote and debate together, at the same time, in the same room. It's OK to count the votes in two separate groups, one for senate and one for house, but it's not OK to have a vote that isn't done by both groups. The problem of the two groups passing different versions of the same bill is absurd.
Another fix would be to raise the voting age to 28. We have idiots voting. Some of these people have never paid taxes. Most don't have kids. Since people without kids don't have reason to care about future generations, they shouldn't get to vote either.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by srobert on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:18AM (1 child)
"Since people without kids don't have reason to care about future generations, they shouldn't get to vote either."
Since people who reproduce do so mostly by accident, they are incapable of planning ahead. So they shouldn't get to vote either.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 14 2021, @10:49AM
My partner and I are easily in the top decile of the people I know when it comes to environmental concerns, both awareness and actions, we are accutely aware that degrading the habitat for future generations is morally unacceptable (but we're moral relativists, you may select your own morals, I reserve the right to view you as a selfish short-termist sociopath). We're also happily - very happily - childfree. (Don't have them, don't want them, never have, never will.) Thank you for putting forward such an amusing and succinct counter to your parent poster's drivel.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Interesting) by deimtee on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:12AM (5 children)
You don't get to vote unless you have kids. You have one vote per kid under 18. (Kids only count if you are supporting them.)
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:34AM
Grown kids are still a share of the future, but not if they get old.
Make it this: one vote per descendant who hasn't reached age 32. You can count the great grandchildren, but not the 40-year-old manchild still living in your basement.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:12AM (3 children)
> You don't get to vote unless you have kids. You have one vote per kid under 18.
By any chance, are you a mormon or a catholic?
(Score: 3, Funny) by deimtee on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:48AM (2 children)
Geez. I was going for funny, and I got two insightfuls.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:53PM (1 child)
I guess your not as funny as you think.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @02:18AM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:17AM (1 child)
Raising the voting age won't change that. As long as you allow any people to vote, half or more of them will be idiots.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:41AM
Thus the saying "There ain't no fool like an old fool".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by linuxrocks123 on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:51AM (19 children)
WOW you have some bad ideas. We take far too many rights away from young people already, and you don't purchase the right to vote with taxes. And people without kids aren't all sociopaths who don't give a shit about anybody else.
Also, it seems that young people in the US are far more concerned than previous generations about the long-term effects of polluting the environment. I don't think cutting them out of the voting pool would help the government thing more long-term.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:37AM (18 children)
Voting isn't the same kind of right as freedom from search, skipping church, having a gun, or being tried by a jury. It isn't so personal. The goal here is to elect good people. You are hurt when the voters select bad people, not when you are turned away for being unwise. A better right is the right to have good people in elected office.
You can't really feel the problem of government excess until you've paid taxes. If you don't pay, it's like letting homeless people vote to have caviar and $1000/bottle wine served at the homeless shelter. I could be harsher. Maybe you should own a house and a car, and not have any student loans. That almost always shows some mix of responsibility, hard work, and intelligence.
Concern for the long-term effects of polluting the environment needs to be balanced by an understanding that we need to be able to build houses and factories. There needs to be an understanding that regulations in the USA cause jobs to move offshore, but the wind and waves bring the pollution back to us. The huge container ships add more. Those foreign factories pollute far more than lightly-regulated ones in the USA would.
Collapsing the economy is not long-term thinking. The rest of the world won't just stop. The rest of the world pulls ahead, polluting like crazy. Recovery is extremely difficult because the supply chains and skills are located overseas.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by helel on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:39AM (11 children)
Your argument makes a kind of theoretical sense but falls apart in the face or real world facts. For example, older voters overwhelmingly vote for politicians that run up the national deficit than younger voters. Likewise voters without student loans are more likely to vote for politicians that run up the deficit than those voters who do still have student loans.
If anything, the metrics you've presented of building economic growth and balancing the governments budget would suggest we should stop older people and people without higher education from voting. The favored candidates of the uneducated and elderly almost always hurt the economy and fuck up the budget while the young and well educated routinely support candidates who, when elected, at least try to balance the budget and who's terms are economically better, even when they inherit a massive recession from the war criminal before them.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:23PM (10 children)
So the small government Republicans must be the younger voters, then? How does that explains all their grey hair.
TIL Ron Paul was 17 and is looking forward to getting the vote.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by helel on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:24PM (9 children)
Ah, I see you don't understand how statistics work. Let see...
Some old people vote for candidates who try to balance the budget. More old people vote for candidates who expand the deficit by orders [huffpost.com] of magnitude [newsweek.com].
Some young people voted for candidates who can't balance the budget. More young people vote for candidates who reduce [factcheck.org] the deficit [newsbreak.com].
So, one of the metrics you chose for good voting decisions was selecting candidates who are fiscally responsible. If you banned all younger voters from voting it's likely we would not get any fiscally responsible candidates elected. On the other hand if we banned all older voters from voting it's likely we would get only fiscally responsible candidates elected.
Does that make it any clearer or is there something you're still not understanding?
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @10:59PM
I would just like to add that it seems to be more of a generational and culural disparity and not a simple age.difference. I don't think it is true that statistically old people will prefer fiscally irresponsible candidates, and it is more that they are a product of the times and who is targeting them with propaganda. In 40 years maybe liberals will become overly tax and spend and the fiscal conservatives will be the sane voices in the room.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @02:43AM (1 child)
Budget bills originate in the US House of Representatives. Obama and Clinton both had GOP running the house for 6 of the 8 years.
Clinton also had GOP running the senate for 6 or 8 years, and Obama had that for a couple years.
Both had things slightly more GOP than Bush Jr., much more GOP than Trump, and much more GOP than republicans of the post-WWII 1900s.
So really, by the numbers, it looks like the answer is a GOP congress. Ignore the president. If you care about the budget, you need a GOP congress.
(Score: 3, Informative) by helel on Friday January 15 2021, @05:34AM
Actually the process starts with the presidential budget request, then it's passed off to both house and senate budget comities to decided what modifications to make. It's not like the president doesn't play a major, if not the single largest, roll in setting the budget.
As for your analysis, Bush Jr and Trump both spend half their term with full Republican control of both house and senate and still somehow managed to increase their deficit spending, allot. In theory your analysis suggests that the best mix is Democrats in the Oval Office and Republicans in the legislature so you have somebody responsible writing the budget request and greedy old pricks trying to cut anything they can cuz when it's Republicans everywhere they just can't seem to figure out how the whole revenue vs expenses thing works.
Then again judging by conservative talking points the deficit doesn't even exist while a Republican is in the White House so that might have something to do with it...
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 15 2021, @10:44AM (5 children)
There's a *huge* difference between voting for someone who later through incompetence is fiscally irresponsible, and voting for someone who has fiscal irresponsibility in his manifesto.
Your argument is entirely dependent on assuming that (a) politicians don't lie; and (b) politicians are competent, and keep their promises.
Neither of those are in evidence, in fact, the contrary is evident.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by helel on Friday January 15 2021, @03:53PM (4 children)
My argument is based on the outcomes of past presidencies. Nowhere did I reference anything a politician said, only what they did.
I would suggest you take a long hard look at your beliefs. Democrats routinely, at the national, state, and local levels, do a better job of balancing budgets than Republicans. It's not a trick or an accident. It's a result of monetary policy that (mostly) breaks along party lines.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 15 2021, @05:05PM (3 children)
And this might explain why you're only understanding half of the argument, you're ignoring half of it.
> I would suggest you take a long hard look at your beliefs.
My beliefs are irrelevant. You don't even know what my beliefs are, as I've not even expressed any, all I've done is reported facts that cover a wider range of things than you've been bothered to look at, which is why you're getting confused.
> Democrats routinely, at the national, state, and local levels, do a better job of balancing budgets than Republicans. It's not a trick or an accident. It's a result of monetary policy that (mostly) breaks along party lines.
It may shock you to realise that that is also totally irrelevant. The topic at hand is *what voters vote for*, not *what politicians do*. If you can't understand the difference between the two, you 're out of your depth in this argument.
You're also not just irrelevant but not even particularly on the money - have you forgotten QE1, QE2, and QE3? The last thing that saw monetary expansion that massive was a freaking world war. Ooops!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by helel on Friday January 15 2021, @10:01PM (2 children)
The original argument was about how to elect "good people" with fiscal responsibility being one of the metrics used to judge which political leaders are "good people" and which are not. I interpreted your post through that lens.
Given your clarification let me say that if leaders who you would describe as having "fiscal irresponsibility in (their) manifesto" routinely achieve better fiscal outcomes it's probable that your views on what consists fiscal responsibility probably need some rethinking.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday January 17 2021, @10:11AM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by helel on Sunday January 17 2021, @02:18PM
Bush, and the Republican controlled house and senate loved easy credit and hated government oversight. In fairness, apparently Bush did try to get the Republican legislature to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but government regulation is the kind of things Republicans don't like and over in the executive branch when his own bureaucracy tried to crack down on predatory lending Bush reigned them in and even when to court to stop the states from doing anything about the growing problem.
So, Republicans created a nation wide economic collapse leaving the US in crisis as Obama took office. Any solution to the kind of dumpster fire Republican presidents like to leave behind would have cost enormous piles of money.
The same is true right now, by the way. Trump was so eager to save a billion dollars a year on the CDC that he axed our pandemic response team. Sure hope the economic fallout of that doesn't end up costing us three trillion dollars or something!
I think this might actually play into what you consider "fiscally irresponsible manifestos." I understand how it's easy to criticize a Democrat who wants to spend a billion dollars a year fighting disease in other countries and "fiscally irresponsible." It makes a kind of intuitive sense that "that's allot of money" and "if it isn't helping us it should be cut." The thing that requires a little deeper thinking is realizing "oh, a disease is like a fire - It's easy to fight when it's small but very ver hard to fight once it gets big."
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:53AM (2 children)
Not so far from history. The franchise was originally limited to males who owned property.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:22AM (1 child)
But were those males buttery? And if so, was it salted or unsalted?
Inquiring mind want to know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:42PM
The buttery males are definitely going to be #salty on 1/21.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:48PM (1 child)
The goal is a public demonstration of approval of the elected officials. Being "good people" is not a requirement. If most of the present day public can't vote, then you no longer can have the public's approval of your government.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:56PM
That's why we need to strip voter rolls down and make it harder to vote. For the sake of legitimacy, you see?
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @02:30AM
Demanded no homeless person ever.
Homelessness is a drag on the economy. Homelessness people are obviously going to have a hard time getting any sort of job, or even dealing with personal problems that may have led to homelessness in the first place.'
Never mind the people who became homeless because of layoffs or cutbacks in their hours, medical problems, or relationships breaking down.
Libertarians are the ultimate believers in predestination, a cruel religious belief. "Bad things happen to you because you're not trying hard enough."
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Tokolosh on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:38AM (3 children)
No representation without taxation. If you don't pay tax, or receive a subsidy, you have no skin in the game and no incentive to vote for ever more largesse.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @02:32AM (2 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @12:50PM
It seems you are still stuck in history. There are far too many voters who don't do any thing to make shit happen. They need to stop living on other people's dime.
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Friday January 15 2021, @04:21PM
Whoosh!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by driverless on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:14AM (14 children)
The problem isn't the voting system, it's the environment it runs in. The Soviet Union had a pretty reasonable constitution and a fair voting system (secret polls, universal suffrage, etc), but that didn't make it a good place to live. The problem in the US isn't the electoral system, that's just a symptom, the problem is the electorate. And I don't think anyone has any idea how to fix that. Traditionally it's been done through a reformat and reinstall, typically taking centuries (Roman empire) or a catastrophic loss (Germany).
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:42AM (9 children)
You're right, but not for the reasons you posit.
The "environment" that's the problem is our *political* system, not the electorate.
Leaving aside (although we should address that too) first-past-the-post elections, the biggest issue is the role that *money* plays in our political system.
That gives more power to those with more money. There are a bunch of reasons for this. TV ads, lack of transparency (think SuperPACs), corporate lobbying and the inexplicable (and yes, it's true) fact that candidates can *keep* any campaign contributions they don't spend.
By having money at the heart of our political system, we attract the greedy and amoral like flies to shit. The average House member spends about 1/3 of his or her time fundraising for their next election campaign.
If we remove money from the political system (banning lobbyists and *monetary* political donations of any kind), limit the length of campaigns and implement publicly funded election campaigns (this would cost much less than you think), there would be more people who are interested in helping their constituents than raking in the cash.
No. That doesn't address first-past-the-post elections, gerrymandering or the strength of partisan blocs.
We should seriously look at other systems (like Ranked Choice Voting) and professionalized non-partisan redistricting.
National and state parties would lose much of their power if they didn't have all that money to direct to their preferred candidates.
There would be more chances for folks who just want to do good for all of us to get on ballots and succeed.
And the electorate would have a wider selection of voices to from which to choose.
Would that solve all our problems? No, that requires more serious action [youtube.com].
But it can make a real difference. And most of that has to be done at the state and local levels. Let's do this thing!
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:04AM (2 children)
At best it would make bugger-all difference - just as the determined programmer can write FORTRAN IV in any language, so the electoral climate in the US can make a mess of any political system. Canada also has FPP, and they don't have anything like the issues the US has. Conversely, Italy has proportional representation and they're a mess. Changing the electoral system is just rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, it's a distraction from the real issues. As long as people are willing to vote for a philandering atheist multiple-bankrupt narcissist on the basis that he's secretly fighting a bunch of satan-worshipping baby-eaters, it doesn't matter what electoral system you have, you're fucked.
(Incidentally, reread that last sentence. If you proposed that as a movie plot and you weren't Trey Parker they'd probably send you to a loony bin, but this is our current reality. That's how badly broken things are).
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:07AM (1 child)
AC you replied to here.
I understand you pessimism, although I don't accept or agree with it.
As for your statement that "As long as people are willing to vote for a philandering atheist multiple-bankrupt narcissist on the basis that he's secretly fighting a bunch of satan-worshipping baby-eaters,"
you're referring to a small, but significant, fraction of Trump voters. Many Trump voters just wouldn't vote for a Democrat. Especially with the constant drumbeat of "socialism!" from the far right media conglomerates that control most of the *local* TV and radio stations across the midwest, south and southwest.
That's a big problem too.
But I don't agree that it's impossible to have change. Especially since most of that change has to come from the grassroots. At the local and state levels.
You can throw up your hands and give up, but then you're part of the problem and not the solution, even if you tacitly support cleaning up our political system.
I refuse to do so. Maybe I'll fail, but I'd rather fail while trying to do some good than just sit around and watch. Maybe that's because I *hate* popcorn?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @08:48PM
“As for your statement that "As long as people are willing to vote for a philandering atheist multiple-bankrupt narcissist on the basis that he's secretly fighting a bunch of satan-worshipping baby-eaters,"
you're referring to a small, but significant, fraction of Trump voters.”
That they had different reasons for their willingness does not negate their willingness. They still occupy the circle on the Venn Diagram labeled “people willing to vote for a philandering atheist multiple-bankrupt narcissist” and that circle has 100% reciprocal coverage of “Trump voters.”
They are not just equivalent sets, they are equal sets. So, no, the reference is to every Trump voter with precisely zero exceptions.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:12AM
Separate reply because it's a separate point: Like the subprime mortgage crisis, I can't see this ever happening because everyone all the way up and down the food chain has their head too far in the trough. We (meaning you and I) can see it's broken and want to change it, but most of the people involved in the process don't. There are a few politicians who seem to be genuinely interested in reform, but look at where that got the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she's dismissed as "radical left" by most people for wanting such radical, practically communist things as free healthcare, fair taxation, dealing with poverty, looking after the environment, all the things that are normal in most other functioning democracies but regarded as extremist views in the US.
Thus my comment that it's going to take a reformat and reinstall to fix things. The lightbulb has to want to change.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:04AM (3 children)
Politicians have lots of power but very little pay. Corruption is ensured.
We don't like the politicians, so we think they don't deserve the pay, but that is the wrong attitude. It gives us corruption. If we won't pay anything close to the market rate, we deserve the corruption. Somebody else will be glad to pay our politicians.
Another part of the problem is that the pay seems high to the median American voter. Somebody looks at their own $60,000 and the senator's $195,000 and thinks the senator is well-paid. No dummy, look at CEO pay. Elon Musk gets about $500,000,000 for his pay, without even a fraction of the power and responsibility. Even our president gets only $400,000. That's just FAANG software developer pay. It's less than 0.1% of what Elon Musk makes, yet the president is responsible for so much more: nuclear weapon usage, tariffs, millions of employees, regulations that affect hundreds of millions of people, etc.
Pay some serious clean money, and the dirty money problem goes away.
Right now it is dirt cheap for China to bribe our politicians. That should terrify every American.
On a per-GDP basis, there isn't a single non-trivial nation in the entire world that pays the leader less. (combine the salary of head-of-state with head-of-government for places with separate people, exclude micronations like the Vatican, exclude places that don't report GDP reliably like North Korea, etc.)
On an absolute basis, the USA pays less than Ireland and Iceland. Running those countries literally pays better than running the USA. Reminder: the USA is largest economy in the world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:10PM (2 children)
If they REALLY loved America, they'd do it for free.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @02:40AM (1 child)
They should do it for the pay of the average voter. This gives them the incentive to raise the pay and standards of living for the average voter, and not the 0.01%.
A $15 minimum wage would pass really easily under such conditions. There would also be more interest in creating long term jobs and not shit "gigs."
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @07:41AM
Maybe you should have specified "average" more carefully. (arithmetic mean, geometric mean, harmonic mean, median, mode...)
In any case, when an election costs a member of congress a few million dollars, what would a low salary even count for? Might as well donate it to charity to look good, then pay for the campaign with bribes!
Even $500/hour is nothing much for a senator. It's unprofitable compared to taking bribes, and very unprofitable compared to being a CEO.
Oh, and on the matter of "creating long term jobs and not shit", you seem to be confused about what congress does. Congress kills the jobs created by industry. Take the health care situation for example. By mandating expensive health care for workers doing 30 hours per week, congress effectively mandated a work week of less than 30 hours for the typical worker. Yeah, less work! Uh, well, two jobs with two commutes, because humans compete and will thus run up the cost of everything if they can. Another great example is environmental regulation, also known as pushing factories out of the country.
(Score: 2) by Tokolosh on Friday January 15 2021, @04:35PM
Removing money from politics means removing the power of politicians to craft legislation and regulations that favor a particular person, business or industry, to discriminate for or against, to give hand-outs. Why do you think so much is spent on elections and lobbying? Whatever rules you make, money will find its way to those who have this power. The only way is to remove power from politicians. If a big business cannot buy a handout or a tax break, money in politics will dry up instantly.
"When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators." -- P. J. O'Rourke
(Score: 3, Touché) by FatPhil on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:27PM (1 child)
And free polonium for all those who run against the incumbent!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:05PM
Free polonium?!? Sign me up! Can I get an extended warranty too?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:51PM
A "pretty reasonable constitution" that it never followed. A "fair voting system" that it never used for anything other than propaganda purposes.
The present day electorate didn't create the first-past-the-post voting system (for a glaring counterexample).
Neither which was due to problems with the electorate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2021, @12:01AM
The problem with the electorate is due to the Jews. Who owns the monetary system, controls the government, the schools, the media, pop culture, the churches, etc. All due to the Jews.
Germany was on the right track, but the Jew slave states had to murder them for daring to free themselves of the parasitic infection.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:28PM (1 child)
How about this? One vote, if you're me, and zero votes, if you're anyone else?
My take on this is that having kids demonstrates preparedness, awareness, and care of/for the future and issues facing us (which apparently is suggested here as a qualification for the right/privilege to vote), much like jumping out of an airplane demonstrates preparedness, awareness, and care of/for skydiving and having a parachute. Some key steps are missing.
People have already noted that there's a fair number of people for which having a kid demonstrates lack of awareness and care of the future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:14PM
*Except for octomom. But otherwise 100% infallible logic.
(Score: 1, Troll) by crafoo on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:01AM (2 children)
Democracy was a mistake. They warned us about it in the Federalist Papers. This country was never intended to be a democracy, and we are finding out first-hand why that is.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 14 2021, @07:30AM
Stop being such a fucking idiot and go read a dictionary.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @07:37AM
Theeerrre it is, the facists want to do away with democracy. SHOCKING!!