Speaking of Revolution

[jpo183]

I know a lot of people including myself are asking themselves when is enough and when is the line in the sand crossed. With a lot of talk about citizen uprising to take back what is lost the question comes to mind:

If you take it back it must be replaced with something. Something always replaces it with something new.

The next question:

With the same people that vote, wont the same problem reoccur......

 

[Ski169]

I would like to think that what would be "replaced" is the corruption and abuse of power that is currently going on. I hope that the Constitution would be enforced in the event we have another opportunity. Excellent question about the possibility of it happening again due to the majority of voters that helped create the situation by electing the morons currently in office. Maybe if the sponges who voted them in are "cut off" from their freebees they will be more irate and vote the a$$holes back in. Or maybe we, as a society, can restore ourselves, to include said sponges, back to being productive. I'm sure there are lot more details beyond my intellect, but a very excellent question. It really got me thinking.

 

[Multifaceted]

I will say this: There is Revolt and then there is Revolution

A revolt or citizen uprising will result in a vacuum which will install a new power structure. Providing that the traditional American system is still preserved, the Republic will last as long as it currently has.

A revolution on the other hand, is a battle for the hearts and minds of the people.

 

[Dogabutila]

Oh I'm sure the same thing will happen eventually. People will always get lazy and entitled in a prosperous nation. "A republic ma'am. If you can keep it."

 

[aireyc]

There are only a handful of changes that need to be made to the current system to prevent most of our really bad problems. A few tweaks beyond that and you could eliminate the vast majority of issues.

Imperative fixes: Revamp election process by eliminating traditional elections once in office. To sustain your office, you need to win an ever-growing minimum "Yay" vote from constituents. In other words, you get elected in a traditional election against opponents. Subsequent elections don't allow you to campaign, no donations, etc. You basically run against yourself and your own record. To hold the office on the first re-election, you need 50% Yay vote, the next election you need 60% Yay, the next requires 70% Yay, and so on. This effectively eliminates a ton of the lobbying and catering only to special interest groups, incrementalism, etc. It's also essentially term limits that don't hurt the really good politicians.

Once you have less lifetime politicians who do nothing but campaign and make backdoor deals, you rework the justice system and jails. Essentially make them self-sustaining mini cities that are so miserable, people won't break the law just to have a place to stay at night. Also institute mandatory sentences with no parole, and a sort of two-strike program that results in a life sentence if you commit similar violent crimes after having received a sentence of 5 years or more. So if you rob a bank with a gun and go to jail for 5 or more years, you get out, and you commit the same crime, it's a life sentence. DUI over .15 or something could be mandatory 1 year, second offense is 5 years, third is life, etc.

Reforming election law + reforming justice system = life is a lot better.

(I am tired and going to bed, so I don't know if the above is coherent. )

 

[teratos]

Just make it so you need to own property in order to vote. Fixed.

 

[jrumann59]

Soft term limits at two consecutive terms and no more than 2 terms in 3 cycles and congress men can run again after serving 2 consecutive terms or two terms in three cycles every 3 presidential cycles but still capped at 2 consecutive.

Senator A gets elected in 2014, gets re-elected in 2018, has to take a 12 year break before running again.

OR

Senator B gets elected in 2014, loses in 2018, gets elected in 2022, Senator B now has to wait 12 years campaign again.

We need a national recall for congressmen.

we need valid voter ID, and repercussions for voter fraud, if you vote 20 times and get caught all 20 votes get tossed.

We need a way to remove activist judges.

I am actually in favor of the old way where Prez and VP could be from separate parties, make the VP campaign for office like the prez just separate.

I think that the every states electoral votes should be broken up by district and based on how those districts vote is how the ECs get split. That way states with populations anchored in urban areas cannot override the areas that are more rural.

 

[mhemling33]

This may be a little off topic but the thread tittle had me thinking about what if a revolution were to occur.... what countries would help who and do you think china would try to jump in and take over the US?

OP Sorry for the off the wall post

 

[abean4187]

Best answer I can give, anarchy. 3000 page read but totally worth it.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq

 

[jpo183]

Gov't from the very beginning was meant to benifit the rich and powerful.

I disagree, I believe our forefathers wanted a "righteous" government for the people and by the people.

I do not think they every thought people would want to be a lifetime politician. DC was a swamp and most politicians were farmers.

As I thought about this I was drawing similarities to the Civil War.

The Civil War was about a lifestyle. A set of people that wanted to force an ideology on another set that was not compatible.

If they would have won, we would have had a Confed States and a United States, I just wonder with how today is if a Civil War broke out and lets say "the revolters" won would the north move into the south and then everything start over again.........

 

[Huckleberry]

Gov't from the very beginning was meant to benifit the rich and powerful. People like us will never have control in any sort of governmental system becuase those systems were not designed to protect people like us to begin with.

Best answer I can give, anarchy (Scary word I know, but most people have no idea what it actually means due to lack of education.)
3000 page read but totally worth it.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq

People like US, huh?

You learn that in school from one of your Sociology professors?

You sure as hell didn't learn if from people that raised their hand, took the Oath and were/are willing to stand the line for their Country.

You didn't learn it from the majority of Americans that still believe in their Country and our Republic. The ones that do the majority of living, working and dying in this country.

America maybe screwed up and temporarily off course thanks to the jackwagons that put their selfs especially their politics, ideas and believes above the good of the country and their fellow citizens.

People that are too intellectual lazy, stupid and dishonest would rather tear down this country and our Constitutional government rather than attempt to live up to the high ideals of honor, integrity, justice and loyalty that such government requires of its' citizens if it is going to be be successful and flourish.

People like me defended and still defend your right to spout this BS and bay like a jackass on their internet.

People like you......well, I leave it at that because people like you aren't worthy of MDS infraction or suspension.

This forum may bring people like you and me together but this forum doesn't make anybody an us.

Save the people like us for the people you meet at the next IMF or G Summits protest and riots.

 

[bbguns]

A novel concept would be for the politicians to actually adhere to their Oaths of Office by following the Constitution.

 

[Multifaceted]

Gov't from the very beginning was meant to benifit the rich and powerful. People like us will never have control in any sort of governmental system becuase those systems were not designed to protect people like us to begin with.

Best answer I can give, anarchy (Scary word I know, but most people have no idea what it actually means due to lack of education.)
3000 page read but totally worth it.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/the-anarchist-faq-editorial-collective-an-anarchist-faq

See this thread for the appropriate discussion of that particular topic.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=119979

 

[HarCo2ANewb]

Just make it so you need to own property in order to vote. Fixed.

Sweet baby Jesus, I want this to happen so bad, it makes too much damn sense though.

 

[SergeantEvil]

What does property have to do with voting?

 

[Second Amendment]

What does property have to do with voting?

To limit voting to those with skin in the game.

 

[jpo183]

I would not like the property feature. For a long time I chose to rent instead of buy because of how the market was going. I paid taxes, worked hard and grew a business in the meantime. The property function was implemented because taxes were not mandatory, and their thought at the time was if you owned property you were paying taxes (skin in the game)

 

[MadCat0911]

To limit voting to those with skin in the game.

And then all of our military folks who haven't bought because they keep expecting to move would suddenly be unable to vote.

How about limit voting to those who've served, be it military, medical, government, or the like? And a meritocracy for all these special boards our lawmakers have, ie, no being a member of the intelligence committee if you've never worked in intelligence, no introducing gun laws if you can't explain what a bcg is, etc...

 

[Second Amendment]

And then all of our military folks who haven't bought because they keep expecting to move would suddenly be unable to vote.

How about limit voting to those who've served, be it military, medical, government, or the like? And a meritocracy for all these special boards our lawmakers have, ie, no being a member of the intelligence committee if you've never worked in intelligence, no introducing gun laws if you can't explain what a bcg is, etc...

I wasn't advocating it, just explaining the reason for the idea. Please chill.

 

[Huckleberry]

And then all of our military folks who haven't bought because they keep expecting to move would suddenly be unable to vote.

How about limit voting to those who've served, be it military, medical, government, or the like? And a meritocracy for all these special boards our lawmakers have, ie, no being a member of the intelligence committee if you've never worked in intelligence, no introducing gun laws if you can't explain what a bcg is, etc...

SERVICE = CITIZENSHIP

Would you like to know more?

Unless you're Fleet, don't worry everybody gets the shakes before a drop