The politics of 2024 and who do you think will be best for us

[Ivy]

Back to the original topic…

 

At this time I don't see any candidates that would actually be that great.  The Republican Party has basically declared war on us.  This kinda leaves the Democrats by default.  I'm actually skeptical of of them though.  

There are a few candidates like Danica Rohm that actually have skin in the game.  But there's no way she would be a viable candidate on a national level at this point.

So, it will once again be a question of choosing the lesser evil.

 

I don't like the idea of being a "single issue voter."  But when the issue is your survival, what choice do you have?

[Willow]

Thanks @ivy.  While this is all good debate and I don’t want to shutdown any of it, I wasn’t intending it to be a debate about historic events.  And as someone who was born in Ohio, of parents from Lynn and Swampscott Massachusetts I certainly see myself as a Yankee.  But, I also figured out that there was a racial divide even in the north.  That was in large part from the riots of 1968 and thanks to a sociology professor.  For those of you who lived through that, you know that most of the northern rioting took place in the neighborhoods where the rioters shopped in stores owned and operated for their benefit.  But the only point I have is racism is still at work today, but in the north more than in the south now.  
 

But back to the political side, what can we do as a group to see that our rights aren’t ignored or trampled as the Republicans would like to see happen?  And how can we get spending by Democrats under control?  Also, who is going to fix social security? There are ways to do it but it would involve collections not benefit cuts.

 

Willow
 

 

[awkward-yet-sweet]

5 hours ago, Willow said:

But back to the political side, what can we do as a group to see that our rights aren’t ignored or trampled as the Republicans would like to see happen?  And how can we get spending by Democrats under control?  Also, who is going to fix social security? There are ways to do it but it would involve collections not benefit cuts.

 

At this point, the political situation is so dominated by a wealthy elite that the majority of us simply won't have an effect on the system.

 

The only real hope of not having our rights trampled is to individually ensure that they are not trampled. Lawsuits while that still works...other measures when that fails.  If you live in a community that still has some traditional values and a general loathing of the federal government, local activism can develop a local government that can act as a shield.

 

Social security and benefits were a mistake from the very beginning. As soon as people rejected personal responsibility and started treating the government as a cow to be milked instead of a beast to be caged, the writing was on the wall for the end of freedom. 

 

Federally, things are becoming fascist at this point.  I use the textbook definition, meaning that a totalitarian government controls and actively works with selected powerful corporations.  Both parties are complicit. There is no easy way to reduce spending. The only fixes that could save the nation are very harsh ones. I do not believe that the general population outside of a small minority is willing to accept that reality.  

 

History is very relevant. One of the big problems is the urban versus rural divide. The same problem existed in the 1860s. The more urban north simply did not understand the more rural South. Living in a rural area, one of the biggest things that I resent is that the high population urban zones wield so much power. When you look at the political map of the USA, you will quickly notice that the blue areas are very small in terms of land mass.  Democrat voters are primarily Urban, with some notable exceptions like some areas along the southern portion of the Mississippi River.  To me, going to a blue area like a major city feels like going into a foreign country.  I frequently wish for those places to actually be foreign countries.

[Willow]

@awkward-yet-sweet while while the FEDERAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTION ACT (FICA) now referred to as Social Security might have been considered to be a bad idea by many, you can’t just take it away now.  Generations have paid thousands of dollars every year with the promise they would eventually get it back with interest.  This is not taxpayer money just given to people, this is their own money just as if they had saved it in a personal retirement account.  The theory always was that the money originally paid in by people in the 30s would help those who lost everything when the stock market crashed and banks failed. Then as the work force grew the FICA savings would eventually out pace the payments.  Two failures built.  First, the baby boomers money was never enough to cover the payments but interest was supposed to make up the difference.  Congress borrowed from the accounts but now is unwilling to repay the debt they created by borrowing that money and make believe it was their money to spend all along so they don’t have to put it back.  Second, now that baby boomers are retired and collecting their just money back from their retirement accounts, the later generations aren’t big enough to keep the original math working.

 

So, suppose you had saved 15% of every dollar you earned your entire life.  But when it came time for you to withdraw from that savings, the bank said we are sorry but that money isn’t there anymore, we spend it so it isn’t yours anymore.  Would you just say oh, well if you used my money and it’s gone, that’s ok I’ll just starve to death?  No you’d be furious.  So was it a bad idea?  Not it wasn’t.  But did the law take everything into consideration?  No it didn’t.

 

Social Security needs to be fixed, no doubt about it.  And yes it can be fixed.  It isn’t bankrupt, but it is owed billions and billions of dollars that congress borrowed but now doesn’t want to pay back.

 

That is MY money, not yours and not congress’s.

 

Willow

[awkward-yet-sweet]

@Willow Social security may be there for those who are currently receiving it.  But for the rest of us, it literally is 15% of everything I earn permanently gone.  I'm never going to get that back in any form.  It is criminal, but it is basically done.  I'm OK with losing that if we get rid of the concept and stop the hemorrhage.  

 

Of course, that doesn't even begin to address the destruction of inflation which stole 15% already, and is continuing to destroy. It doesn't begin to address the crime that is property tax, which keeps the common people from being secure in owning a home.  It doesn't even begin to address the impending economic collapse, which will make our currency worthless and take all savings with it. Basically, if you cannot hold it in your hand you don't have it... Which is the nature of fiat currency.  We have had a risky and potentially worthless currency ever since the gold and silver standard went away.  Part of getting rid of the spending and inflation and corruption will involve eliminating the Federal Reserve as well as our fiat currency and returning things back to secure monetary policy. It has been so long that it is practically beyond living memory.  

 

Just about everyone currently in public office above the local level is complicit. I'm beginning to suspect that this has been true for decades if not a whole century. You can't make a meal with rotten and poisonous ingredients.  At this point, the question probably isn't about fixing the system but how to replace it or do a total reset to zero and minimize the inevitable damage.  

[AshleighMarie]

On 2/16/2023 at 12:14 PM, April Marie said:

A Republic, our Republic, is designed to work somewhere close to the middle where politicians recognize that making wise concessions isn't weakness but rather represents the reality of where the majority of people reside philosophically.

I agree wholeheartedly that this is how our system is designed to work.   The problem at present is that gerrymandering has created many, many congressional districts that are not competitive.   Therefore, the politicians have zero incentive to compromise for the greater good, and only play to the extreme elements of their own party.

[AshleighMarie]

8 hours ago, Willow said:

Social Security needs to be fixed, no doubt about it.  And yes it can be fixed.  It isn’t bankrupt, but it is owed billions and billions of dollars that congress borrowed but now doesn’t want to pay back.

This is precisely correct.   The politicians (both parties) borrowed money from SS to fund their own projects, rather than raise taxes to pay for them.   Now, they are faced with a choice.    Raise taxes to pay back SS or convince us to accept less.

Guess which approach they are taking......  LOL

[April Marie]

12 minutes ago, AshleighMarie said:

I agree wholeheartedly that this is how our system is designed to work.   The problem at present is that gerrymandering has created many, many congressional districts that are not competitive.   Therefore, the politicians have zero incentive to compromise for the greater good, and only play to the extreme elements of their own party.

This is also a negative result, and perhaps the only one, of the elimination of earmarks back in 2010. Once the $$ incentive to compromise was eliminated where congressional reps could fund specific projects in their districts, every issue debated became philosophical and, therefore, harder to compromise on. That, IMHO, pushed the bubble towards the extremes of both parties.

[Marcie Jensen]

Both @Willowand @awkward-yet-sweethave valid points about Social Security. For those of us who paid into it for decades and are now receiving it. Social Security has become an essential for many.  It is also a legal contract between us and the government. To put it bluntly, we are OWED those monies, AND we had no choice but to pay into the program. As for the fiction that congress has borrowed against it, the plain truth is that the monies paid into it actually went into the general fund; there never was a "protected" account for Social Security. Finally, it was never intended to fully support anyone's retirement. It was supposed to be a supplement. It was enacted during a period when people worked at the same job for their adult life, retired and received a pension and a gold watch. Times changed. Social Secuity DOES have numerous flaws and needs to be fixed, but the answer isn't to simply abolish it.

 

Fiat Money is a very real thing--it too dates to the Civil War with the introduction of greenbacks--and it is a problem world wide. In my 65 years, I've seen our coinage debased (when I was a child coins went from pure silver to base metals). I've seen both gold and silver certificates (bills labeled "this note redeemable in gold or silver at any federal reserve") withdrawn from circulation. Both of these have significantly impacted inflation. That said, returning to a gold or silver standard may be impossible at this stage though. 

 

Nowadays politics is about retaining power by those elected. There needs to be some major overhauls in our government to rectify this, but I doubt any changes will be made. Sadly. How does this pertain to 2024? Or the best candidates? Right now, the only thing I can think of is to vote against every incumbent on the grounds that they're the problem.

[Ivy]

7 minutes ago, Marcie Jensen said:

That said, returning to a gold or silver standard may be impossible at this stage though. 

This is true.  To go back to the Gold Standard at this point would mean the collapse of what society we still have, and probably a bloodbath.

[Willow]

@Marcie Jensen I agree whole heartedly.  And that brings us back to Nikki Hailly.  Part of her initial campaign platform is to demand term limits on congress thus clearing out the old crony system of you back my pork barrel and I’ll back yours.

 

She has also suggested there should be a competency examination for every politician at the federal level over a certain age.  Right now she is suggesting 75, but I think it should be younger, or just place an age limit.  Her point is we need a younger, my in tuned government.  We had that in the beginning, with the 1960 election and at other times, but we keep going back to older is better.  Biden is 80 Trump 75 two of the oldest potential next presidents.  
 

Even though I doubt she has a chance of getting the nomination or winning, she has a lot of good points.

 

Who else is ready to step up and challenge the tried and failed?

[Marcie Jensen]

Hey @Willow, speaking personally, I've liked Nikki Haley as a candidate for a long time; and for the same reasons I've liked Kirsten Sinema here in AZ.  like you, I don't think Ms. Haley will get the nomination, but one can hope. 

 

After the last election cycle, particularly in my state, I swore I would never vote for either major party again, but, in the case of Nikki Haley, I could make an exception.

[Ivy]

5 hours ago, Willow said:

She has also suggested there should be a competency examination for every politician at the federal level over a certain age.

This sounds good on the surface, but I see a real potential for abuse.

[Willow]

@Ivy  that’s a good point but with all the gaffes Biden makes and the seditious acts Trump was connected to, is it reasonable to see either as mentally competent?  Let’s face it all of us who are older have to realize we’ve lost something.  

[Ivy]

1 hour ago, Willow said:

 Let’s face it all of us who are older have to realize we’ve lost something.

Yeah.  My biggest problem with a "competency test" is it could potentially be used against political opponents.

I think I have already mentioned somewhere that it is time for a new generation to take leadership.  Let the young'uns handle it.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

We could handle the gerontocracy issue pretty easily.  There are already age minimums in place for so many things, including running for Representative, Senator, and President.  To be president you have to be at least 35, if I remember right.  There's mandatory retirement ages for military generals.  At age 65, you're out, except for deferment until age 66 by the Secretary of Defense and 68 by the President.  Those precedents would make a maximum age for political office possible.  I'd like to see all Federal offices banned for those over 65.  No more 70 year old presidents and 90 year old Supreme Court justices.  And term limits for everyone.  4 terms in the House, 2 in the Senate, 2 as president, and 8 years on the Supreme Court.  Have 4 or 5 year limits on appointed positions, so we don't get a Fauci that sits in the same spot for 30 years.  

 

It has often been said that politicians are like diapers...to be changed early, often, and for the same reason.

[Willow]

7 hours ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

 

It has often been said that politicians are like diapers...to be changed early, often, and for the same reason.

You hit the nail on the head with this one for sure.  I would reduce the maximum age of the Supreme Court Justices but hey you might be right on with that too.  I think that they need to control their court a little better.  Too many leaks of very high profile cases.  Of all the branches, they should be able to keep their own secrets.

 

Generally, congress committees and the president both have access to top secret information and they keep their mouths shut.

 

So, what do you think, an all female president and vice-president team?  Is the country ready for that.  Could they make the tough decisions?  Margaret Thatcher did. Some others as well, but they weren’t running the strongest country in the world.  We finally elected a woman vice president is it time?  Certainly it’s time for new, younger blood.

 

Willow

[Marcie Jensen]

@WillowI think you're onto something with an all female president and vice-president.  They certainly couldn't do any worse than many of the all male presidential teams this country had. Regarding Margaret Thatcher, my late father (who was a huge fan of hers) used to say she was "the best man that England had produced since Churchill." Thanks for bringing back a fond memory. And, yes Pop had a warped sense of humor.

 

@awkward-yet-sweet, I like the idea of term limits for all members of the federal government. That would return things to how the founders envisioned the government operating. It would also help to get rid of the professional politicians we now have.  It might also help to keep attorneys from dominating congress as they now do. 

[Ivy]

14 minutes ago, Marcie Jensen said:

It might also help to keep attorneys from dominating congress as they now do. 

IDK. There seem to be a lot of lawyers looking for work.

[Ivy]

40 minutes ago, Willow said:

So, what do you think, an all female president and vice-president team?

Sure it could work.  But there are some pretty sleazy ladies around.  Gender does not equal virtue.

 

Another thing is that we are still in a patriarchal society.  Misogyny is real a thing.  I suspect more people would be willing to vote for a female VP, than a president as absurd as that is.  There are people who object in principle to a woman "having authority over a man."

[Marcie Jensen]

34 minutes ago, Ivy said:

 There are people who object in principle to a woman "having authority over a man."

True, but, that argument falls to pieces on them given the empirical evidence present today. For example, a woman as vice president; women on the supreme court; a woman who has been speaker of the house; women as CEOs; women as mayors, governors, etc. The list is endless. 

[Willow]

@Marcie Jensen unfortunately, there are two people on your list that I wouldn’t want in either job.  And I understand the whole men hate being subordinate to a woman, but like you said, there are plenty of worthy women and men that if they could be convinced to run would be excellent leaders.

 

Now, since women turn out for elections more than men, would women back an all women ticket?  Is that our able to win third party?

 

 

[Marcie Jensen]

@WillowI'm confused. What list are you referring to? I believe I've only mentioned two names--Nikki Haley, who I thought you said would make a good candidate, and I did mention Kirsten Sinema, who is an independent, but nor necessarily a candidate. I mentioned in jest Margaret Thatcher who is deceased and was a citizen of the UK and therefore not a potential candidate on two counts. I admit I may be having a senior moment here (lol) but, I don't think so.

 

I do believe that most women, and many men, would back an all woman ticket, providing it was the right pair of candidates. IDK about a third party. While I welcome the idea and would support one, I'm just not sure it's feasible in today's political environment.

[awkward-yet-sweet]

I would not want an all female ticket, for multiple reasons.  First, a nations government should reflect the diversity of its population.  A 50/50 ticket is ideal, rather than domination by just men or women.

 

Second, women tend to be more leftist than men...so there's fewer female candidates who interest me. 

 

Third, in diplomatic relations with nations whose populations are not equal (like Muslim nations where all leaders are men) a total female leadership would not have as much respect or advantage in negotiations.  

[Ivy]

37 minutes ago, awkward-yet-sweet said:

women tend to be more leftist than men...

At the risk of sounding "Woke", this seems like a bad reason for not wanting women to run for offie.