So it seems like the solution would be to have a democracy with hard term limits for each position'. Then throw in a bidding and contract system that doesn't allow for graft and then kill the lobbyists. Then you have to back this up with strict laws on campaign finance. Hell you could even put caps on funds available to politicians.

As I said to @newtboy sometime ago in a similar(ish) conversation, I appreciate your responses. It's nice to talk to someone not just spitting bile (which you'd do less if you ate a plant-based whole food diet ).

Those 'multiple phases of science' saying some food was good or bad at various times of your life is mostly the lobbyists and corporations making smoke screens. It's been known for decades that a plant-based whole food diet is protective against the #1 killer in the Western world. Again, it's the same as the tobacco companies. When the science disagrees with you, you cause a confusion smokescreen so people say exactly what you just said. And evidently it worked -- until the last few years when the internet and a handful of movies and books have started making it very clear what's going on. If you have a short attention span, I suggest you watch just a few 5-min videos on NutritionFacts. The guy is funny and has videos about just about everything in nutrition. And he takes everything from the newest studies. He also has a great book that came out recently, How Not to Die which is a fun read considering it's a diet science book.

Re: personal choice -- I understand you annoyance at being belittled by vegetarians/vegans, but you have to understand that we don't see it as a "personal choice". We see it as a moral one. Why is it not a "personal choice" to molest children? What if someone likes to molest children? It doesn't matter because, morally, you should not. And you're causing harm to another. The question is why are animals not allowed inside our moral-consideration-circle. Why are they excluded?

I personally think that vegetarians are hypocrites if they're doing it for moral reasons alone. You could argue that meat is murder, but dairy is torture. But, you gotta take whatever steps you need to get there. It's hard, I know. Giving up dairy was really hard.

My argument usually isn't about sentience. It's about choices. Why cause harm to something you don't need to just for your pleasure when there are literally better alternatives? We do, indeed, have to eat, so I eat the lowest form on the food chain that I can to survive. They just also luckily happen to be the most nutritious.

That "ghost voting" shit is infuriating. We elect these fucks to do *one* thing -- represent us by voting for their constituents interests in the legislature. But instead, apparently they'd rather spend time doing other things, like "entertaining" lobbyists.

We need that rule like I remember Australia (any Aussie sifters confirm that?) having, where the public can vote to "take a mulligan" and completely sweep out every single member of the legislature.

The gov't will always have varying degrees of "business" when it comes to things like this. And it will always change, because of varying interests. Private industry is largely responsible for why marijuana is illegal now. So you can't really treat gov't as this outside, independent authority, because it's going to respond according to enough voters or through lobbyists who are, effectively, us. Gov't is just caught in the middle between those various forces.

Shit changes though. Just look at cigarette smoking. Cigarettes used to be pretty harmless, until business got ahold of it and added all sorts of shit to it. Not only that, but it really wasn't that long ago that you pretty much had to smoke if you wanted to be socially accepted. Now the tables have turned. Smokers are pretty much shamed now. If you want to blame gov't for that, fine, but again, as I said before, we are the gov't. either through votes or through lobbyist influence.

You can look back at past gov't decisions and make judgements, sure, but that's hindsight. There's always going to be this dynamic of "Gov't should regulate X, but gov't shouldn't regulate Y" and every person has a funny way of evaluating such things and they don't always reflect reality, but some do.

But even when something is legalized like marijuana, there's always going to be some sort of regulation, like now, it's being regulated through taxation. Cigarette taxation is also a thing. A bartender acts like a regulator when they cut you off from drinking. Don't like it? don't drink there then.

On social policies, left and right couldn't be more different. Sure, there are plenty of sane conservatives that have come around towards not treating minorities, women, and LGBT like shit. A lot of times it's that same meme we've seen over and over. Conservatives don't give a fuck until they're personally affected by it. They only stop being pro-war if one of their loved ones dies. They only stop being anti-lgbt if they discover that one of their loved ones are lgbt. Just recently, Kasich got a bit of the spotlight because of his 2nd place in the NH primaries and he gets hailed as the more moderate conservative, but he's still pretty anti-choice, so I'm told.

Now yeah, you're exactly right when it comes to other aspects of the parties. the entire primary process is complete bull. The RNC and DNC are both private organizations. There is no rule whatsoever that they are beholden to votes There is nothing in the constitution about parties. They literally can nominate whoever the fuck they want. Sanders and Trump could win every single primary race and they could still pick anyone they want and ignore the votes. What's worse is that taxpayers fund the primary elections so we're wasting taxpayer dollars on a primary race that literally DOES NOT MATTER. I am an election worker and I recently got contacted that ill be working our state's primary election in May. sure the extra cash is nice (it's only about 100 bucks) but that's 100 bucks we could spend on more useful things and I'd gladly give it up to create a better selection process and eliminate primaries completely. Elections in America are so fucking messed up and resemble a reality show way too much, which definitely explains why Trump is doing as well as he is. If we had actual debates and took shit seriously? He'd never have a snowballs chance in hell. But hey, this is America and we care more about spectacle than substance.

Now yeah, if our only two choices were Cruz or Trump, I'd vote for Trump in a heartbeat. He's the lesser of two evils. (And I also love feeding the RWNJ paranoia that he's a democrat plant). That is the reality of our elections. I knew damned well that Obama was never going to be able to do most of the things he said he would do, even if he did have a friendly Congress. But again, he's the lesser of two evils.

America puts way too much stock in the Office of the President. Congress is where the real power is at, but America's culture mistakenly hinges EVERYTHING on the Presidency, and it's just not true, it's a distraction from the real wheels of power. It's the same in Britain. The monarchy has no real power, they're figureheads. The real power is in Parliament. The monarchy is a distraction.

You're exactly right about lobbyists and money in politics. I've been on board with that on day one. I'm definitely pro Bernie. But even if Bernie wins the general, he's going to have a hostile congress and that's going to limit much of what he can do unless we can take back congress. Again, that's where the real power is. The most he will probably be able to do is appoint more SCOTUS judges.

So democrats, if you want shit to change? stop staying home during the midterm elections. Unless something crazy happens, Republicans aren't going to be retaking the white house any time soon, but you need to start voting in the midterms so that Congress changes. It's this sad little cycle. During general elections, dems come out to vote in droves, but then they stay home for the midterms and Republicans trounce them and they wonder why Congress is right-wing.

So yeah, if for social policies alone, I'll definitely vote for Hillary if Bernie doesn't get the nod. Do I think she'll accomplish much? No, but few presidents do. CONGRESS IS WHAT MATTERS!

@VoodooV --

I dunno. That argument holds true, but only if you believe that the parties actually represent different ideologies / interests. Those (like myself) who look at the whole mess and see "pack of billionaires / corporations / lobbyists A" vs "pack of billionaires / corporations / lobbyists B" might be interested in Bernie mainly because the Democrat establishment clearly doesn't *want* us to be.

For me personally, I think Bernie represents the best shot at real, positive change. Then again, I'm wary of that because I thought the same thing about Obama and his rate of delivery on promises has been very very low (to be fair a lot of that is systemic rather than HIS fault). But if/when Bernie doesn't get the Democrat nod, I'd be highly tempted to vote for Trump just because sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better, and Trump is clearly the fastest path towards "worse"...

I know this isn't going to change the world (almost certainly), but it moved me a little bit to see that point made on such a prominent stage and so bluntly. If this doesn't happen soon, i don't see how our species can thrive. There is currently so little regard for the consequences of our actions.. and Hilary probably believes what she says, that it never affected her. But subtle changes to priorities here and there add up over the years. As smart as she must be to be a presidential candidate, lobbyists can buy 'experts' to sound convincing and come up with selective ways to show data, or just buy more access to a politician and get more time to put their point across.

I would say this is pretty much on the button, though. This way clearly isn't working, but the people who have money and power have convinced the majority that nothing can change and even if we could we would be worse off.

I don't think i'm being melodramatic or conspiracy theorising either. Rupert Murdoch and the Barclay brothers tell people what to think and they think it. Democracy has been subverted by money in most western countries with corporate lobbyists willing to spend billions to get a politician on-side, "anti-lobbying" legislation that actually attacks grassroots and activists from broadcasting the truth at election time (and leaves lobbying untouched), and unfair campaign spending/fund-raising that leaves the rich with all the advantage.

The media in Britain have consistently presented a skewed and incorrect representation of the left-wing party leader. It is clearly a campaign by vested interests to stop a man who would bring their reign to an end. The language that they use and the metric by which they judge "their" guy is COMPLETELY different to how they judge the "other" guy.

What's worse is, fairness and balance in the media has deteriorated to such a point that it is now absolutely fine for all this to happen.

As Lawdeedaw said, we are already a long way up shit creek and we didn't even pack the paddle. Some people are getting very rich and are very comfortable, they have immense power and they will say anything to convince you that it's best that it stays that way. Including lying and using manipulative language and statistics in their national publications and television stations. And all you as an individual really has to do is vote someone into power that cannot be corrupted. You've got Bernie, we've got Jeremy.

"Too rich to be corrupted" is farcical though - let's only trust rich people then. Not only does this suggest that rich people are more trustworthy just by dint of having lots of money, but that poor people are less trustworthy because the greedy little paupers can't restrain themselves from 'upping their station'? I would rather judge someone on who i perceive their character to be than based on what is in their bank account, but i guess i'm fucked up like that.

@Lawdeedaw

I think that's a bit of a flawed argument and hardly what's wrong with the US economy. It would be silly to halt the automation* of driving. Not only is it likely to lead to safer driving but reducing the costs of shipping everything will in effect lower the costs of virtually all goods and improve living standards. Government may have a role to retrain workers or to provide unemployment support but it's not there to prop up industries that are obsolete. No one wants to go back to the days of typists and secretaries and for good reason.

I would rather blame the entrenched firms with their lobbyists protecting their turf through the corrupt political contribution system. If you look at Google Fiber for example: Verizon, Comcast and the like have been mounting various political and legal challenges to keep them from growing and to protect their margins. Free market economies work because new market entrants erode profits over time through innovation. Instead you have politically maintained trusts.

@ChaosEngine

if you are referring to the established political class,the pundit class and those with relative power and influence i would agree with your assertions.

which is pretty much what i am talking about.

if you look how ron paul was being treated by his own party and compare that treatment to sanders by the DNC,there are some glaring similarities.

while both paul and sanders have differing politics,they did align in a few areas i.e: audit the fed,citizens united,money in politics and restructuring the military to name a few.

they both had/have immensely popular grassroots support.ron paul garnering 20 million in small donations and sanders broke that record with 30 million.

they both held large rallies with high attendance.

they both had a populist flavor that appealed to their own political base.challenging the current corrupt power structures.

and they both have/had experienced a weird media blackout,even though they were/are incredibly popular with the voters.

now we can question WHY that is,but i don't think it too much a stretch to come to the conclusion that both candidates challenged the current power structures that dictate this countries dysfunctional and corrupt political system.add to that mix a paid propaganda pundit class that never challenges the current narrative,all put on display on corporate media which is owned by what? 5-6 entities? who just happen to be the biggest lobbyists in this country?

nader experienced pretty much the exact same treatment from the DNC in regards to media exposure and it went even further in his case with him being outright denied to some debates,or made to jump through almost insurmountable dictates to even get ON the debates.

so when i assert this is a well crafted and intentional practice by the parties,i do so with precedent.

because all three,nader,paul and sanders all had/have massive public support from the voters,but not their respective parties.

so when ron paul started to become a real thorn in the RNC,who did not want him anywhere near the nomination.they changed the tactic from ignoring or downplaying pauls message..to creating the "kook" myth.this was from his own party!!

nader received similar treatment,though in a different context.the establishment as a whole came out against him.

so what can we assume,based on previous tactics from these political parties in regards to sanders?when they can no longer ignore his popularity? his grassroots campaign donations? his rally attendances?

there will soon come a time when they can no longer ignore sanders and his grassroots success,and they will respond the exact same way they did with nader and paul.they will concoct a narrative that plays on peoples fears and biases and begin to portray sanders as an anti-capitalist "kook".that somehow him being a democratic socialist means the end of our civilization.just the word "socialist' makes many a republican wet their panties.

could i be wrong?
oh please god let me be wrong.
i happen to like much of what sanders is promoting,not everything,i have issues with some of what he proposes,but over-all i dig not only what he is saying but how he is going about conveying his message.

there is one huge problem if sanders gets the nod,and that is the support you mentioned.he has almost none in the legislature.which will make much of what he is trying to change in washington damn near impossible.

which will create it own political mess and just create fodder for the pundit class to ineffectually pontificate on,just so they can have a job.

i think it would be such a great thing for this country if sanders got the nomination,but the establishment has already made its intentions clear:they dont want sanders,they want hillary.the establishment does not play by the rules nor do they play nice.

playing by the rules and being decent is for the peasant class.

hope i am wrong.
i hope that every single point i made will never occur.
i hope that sanders gets the nod and things may change,because this country needs a fucking enema.
but my cynicism really struggles with that kind of hopeful optimism.

He makes a persuasive argument with regards to the length of campaigns in the US vs elsewhere.

I somewhat disagree with the idea that we need people with government experience to be elected as presidents, senators, representatives, etc. though. Mainly because "government experience" is just bullshit code for "been in Washington long enough to be bought and paid for by some mega-corporation and its lobbyists".

...Not to say that Carson or Trump are ideal (or, you know, even "adequate") candidates because they don't have government experience. However, someone with zero experience but having good intentions, a reasonable amount of common sense, and a High School Civics class level of knowledge about how government is supposed to work would likely end up being a better candidate than either of them (or Hillary, or Sanders, or whoever else). Especially if we could keep lobbyists away from them for a while.

Right now, especially for the Legislative branch, lobbies get way too much bang for their buck buying the loyalties of newbies that are very likely to become entrenched incumbents for years if not decades. Sweep everybody out after a term or two and at least they would have to try their luck buying off somebody new (and hopefully a bit more idealistic) every election cycle instead of letting it ride for years and years...

Isn't that the Monsanto Lobbyist who claimed Glyphosate is completely harmless and he would drink a glass of it and when actually got offered a glass freaked out?

Meh. How about you try and answer your own questions.

Would YOU blame Bush?

No? because he's only one person who doesn't have absolute control over congress or the fiscal policies they put forth?

Recently, you've mentioned how K Street lobbyists have their claws in everyone..

Does that include all 301 Republicans currently in Congress?

Or are those people magically exempt from the influence of: millions in campaign donations, gifts/perks, & guaranteed, cushy, post-congressional careers?

If so, would Democrats automatically become immune from corruption if they switched parties?

Omg, one party solution! China was right.
(I'm mean.. except for the dirty Commie thing.)

If we just eliminate Democrats and liberals, everything will be fixed!
*pat pat* You're a genius! little buddy.

When you are not owned by lobbyist or donors you can say what is on your mind.


Top Lobbyist Contributors, 2014 Cycle
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_topcontribs.php?cycle=2014&type=F

Major Lobbyist-Client Connections among Health Care Interests, 2007 - 2009
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lm_health.php


Top Recipients of Contributions from Lobbyists, 2014 Cycle
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/lobby_contribs.php

Dude, you need to chill. Have some weed or a glass of wine or something. The pot legalisation will work itself out over time. Once enough rich people realise how much cash is in it, it'll become an industry with lobbyists. Maybe Snoop should start a super PAC.