DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Represent.us - Have you seen this?

I just saw this on Facebook and thought it would be worth a share here... This is not Republican vs. Democrat, not another of our usual arguments here... I want to know more, but think this is a good idea and would like your feedback.

Here is the problem:



The proposed solution:



Site link: Represent.us

I like it - I think this is one thing that most can agree on. Politicians are almost all corrupt, especially at the federal level.

The local level isn't without it's crooks either, they are generally just not as well known elsewhere.. Jimmy Dimora comes to mind.

Or Mr. Beam Me Up Scotty!

Didn't say they weren't. Look at the red light camera fiasco going on in Columbus now. It's just the money at the federal level these guys are getting is astounding. I'd say there are more good local ones than federal ones, though no city is without some sort of corruption.

Who, oddly enough, just might have been more honest than many of the politicians who had him railroaded.

(Please note that this is not to say that he did nothing illegal .... just that his degree of illegality was probably half that of the average politician)

How is this not generating more discussion???

I really can't believe how so many people in our country have just become total sheep to the system...bowing to the likes of Ted Cruz and Nancy Pelosi, and a host of others who point fingers and offer catch phrases while actually offering nothing - or worse - to the American public.

I understand that politics has always had this element, but it has gotten to an uncanny level at this point. Something has got to give.

I have no idea. I thought this would be a very good thread with lots of response too. I guess there is no room for trolling, nobody can really defend greed and corruption so it generates no debate.

I don't agree with your political stances normally, but I totally agree with what you posted here. I think most Americans do, which is curious as to why there are not more responses. Since there is nothing to argue about, it is not interesting I guess, which is also probably why it hasn't gained any traction.

I like this thread, a lot.

The problems happen once we start looking at the sources of corruption, and how to fix them. You get factors like who controls the money, inheritance issues, and the social mobility, or lack thereof, in this country, From there the discussion spirals out of control.

We have well meaning people on both sides, but one side is complicit in aiding those because they buy the false narrative of "OMG SOCIALISM!", and you hace the other side going "THOSE GREEDY RICH PEOPLE!".

But, now we have Bernie Sanders going into predominantely red states drawing massive crowds to listen to modern day wealth distribution. Maybe the times are changin'?

I think response is slow because there's not much to argue about.

It sounds like an initiative that could gain traction all over the country... and could be supported by ppl of all political stripes.

About 2 Summers ago, I casually mentioned to my Pops-In-Law (arch conservative, 5-day/wk Limbaugh listener) that I thought the same general anger which drove the inception of the Tea Party Patriots also drove the Occupy Wall Street movement. My point was that both movements saw a common enemy, whether they realized it or not- the Big Bank/Big Corp/Big Gov- based 'corruption connection' on CapHill.

His response surprised me. Instead of following my train of thought, he simply went ballistic on the OWS movement, and practically forbade me to speak their name in the same breath as the Tea Party. At that point, I realized this conversation wasn't going anywhere, so I dropped it.

I had a similar encounter with a work colleague, but he went ballistic on the Tea Party with the same fervor as my Pops In-Law. I dropped that conversation like a hot rock, too.

The 'Big Boys Club' has done a masterful job of 'divide & conquer' for the past 40 years, but they haven't fooled everyone. Pops and David may be drones for their respective sides, but The Bigs haven't gotten to me yet. It's why I find this idea so compelling.

It's simple.
It's honest.
It's clean.
...and it's about the only play we have left.

____________

That graph in vidclip #1 was eye-opening as could be... and SHOULD be the kind of revelation that would galvanize both OWS and TP types in a common cause. TP wants less government, OWS wants less Big Influence in govt. Working together under this banner, perhaps each could get some of what they want. And some is better than the political cesspool we now have.

Maybe this thread will pick up steam. It's still pretty young. I like the premise of this initiative, for sure. I love that it takes the power back to the rank & file ppl who have the most at stake- average Joes and Josephines who want a better future and better representation in DC.

+++++++++++++++

If there is one weakness in this initiative, it's the scale. A handful of 'clean' new politicians don't stand much of a chance if they are outnumbered 535 (plus lobbyists) to 6, 8, 10 or 12. What's to keep them from being corrupted as soon as they get their congressional offices decorated? I think this initiative needs to make a bigger initial impact if they can. Something on the scale of the 2010 mid-terms. Maybe then, the 'clean-out' would have a chance. With the pace of change they are suggesting, progress might be hard to come by.

Speaking only for myself... I think it's a great idea. I also like that you found it on the biggest social media platform known to Man. If they can find a way to get it to viral status, it could lead to something truly significant. It would have a great many "anonymous fat cats" upping their Xanax dosages.

Imagine... a populist revolt against the ruling class that didn't involve riots, guns, pitchforks, Molotov cocktails, guillotines and excessive bloodshed.

Yeah... I could actually get behind such a populist uprising.

I certainly hope so.

It's funny because I have had some "heated" (in the message board sense) debates with a couple posters in this thread, but damn it's crazy how, even though on individual issues we differ, we have the exact same view on this issue.

What irks me is that this thread goes to the core of every other political thread we've had on this board, yet there are no "Stupid Libs" or "dumb right winger" comments being made. On its face, that would appear to be a good thing, but I think the lack of those people's presence on this thread further demonstrates the tunnel vision or "head-in-the-sand" mentality which has been a core cause of the worst problem our country is facing.

Clem, as always, you have a masterful expression. I think you should run for one of those spots. You're a Browns fan after all, so you know how to persevere through the roughest adversity.

It depends on how you answer the question.

What is the role of government?

If you believe that government is not to become involved in business, and should regulate human activity, and provide a strong defense, then chances are you are a conservative/republican.

If you believe that government should regulate the activity of business, and human activity should be supported, and military expenditures are greater than the next 9 counties combines (5 friendly) then chances are you are a liberal/democrat.

If you think there should be no government regulation of either business or human, then you are a libertarian.

If you think that there should be some regulation of business and individual, well you are out of luck.

Out of luck means that traditional Republican activities, like infrastructure (e.g. interstate system) for the common good is a waste of money, and should be privatized like driving in Texas. Same with water, power and anything else that may be "better done" by for profit corporations.

It stinks to be in the middle. I often wonder how 2008 would play out in today's world.

Money is made on the margins, those with wealth can benefit most when there are periodic swings in the economy.

Thanks for the 'vote of confidence,' but I have no desire to get in that world. Here's why:

If I wanted to make more money/actually help more ppl than I do, I could have chosen 'Clemdawg's Rural Septic Services'... but then, I'd be "honey-dipping" all day. Thanks... I'll pass.

Now... if I didn't choose to be an honest, Real-Life 'Honey Dipper' over my current job, what makes you think I'd trade it for a job where I actually wallow in the [expletive], instead of just siphoning it out of a hole in the ground?

Nope.

I'd much rather be part of the footsoldiers. You meet a better class of ppl in those ranks.

.02

You lost me here. I'm not sure how this statement is related to the original post topic or if I said something else that you took the wrong way... either way I have no idea what you are responding too.

If you notice, video articles tend to be slow starters. Why?

I presume it has to do with many viewing at work, and watching and listening to a video well enough to comprehend the subject matter is not always possible within the confines of an office or workplace.

This has long been the problem. I have always felt that most first term congress members go their with good intentions.. then they get gobbled up by the system. the two political machines make it clear to them that they have no voice and if they want to have any chance at all to be re-elected, that they will play ball with the party.

Some take the stance that politics draws dishonest people, I tend to disagree. I think politics draws honest people that start out wanting to make a difference and makes them dishonest.

As for why this isn't getting much discussion in here.. simple, there is nothing to bitch about... stories of good news, stories of optimism, stories of actual positive change, they tend to die quickly..

I will have to look into it, I give these guys credit for trying to start this from the ground up because most other initiatives have been how to take the corruption we have and clean it up, I like this plan because it's end goal is not to make greedy/dirty politicians clean again, it's how to slowly flush them from the system and replace them with more honest people.

I believe the success of this venture will be better determined about 10 years from now once a couple rounds of people have come out of it.... can they stay true to their constituents? If so, it has a chance, if they fall into "the system" then it will fail.

This article will fit well here... University study finds we live in an oligarchy, not a democracy.

I've said on this board before the main issue comes from there only being 2 viable parties to choose from. i think we're the only country that has this issue.

the tea party is just an extension of the GOP, socialism is just an extension of democrats.

we are constantly stuck in a lesser of two evils battle. nothing changes until the political system changes.

Help me out, my memory is getting bad I guess, who is Mr. Beam Me up Scotty?

Is that the guy from Youngstown,.... Damn, what's his name,, Maybe Trafacant?

I loved the traffic camera fiasco in Cleveland a while back. Politicians always looking to get in our pockets. Which in and of itself isn't the worst thing if what they did with the money is going to help the community/county/state/country, but it seems so much of it gets diverted to some politicos pocket or to some worthless cause.

I have a friend that has worked as a staffer for a member of the US House of Representatives since the Rep. was elected as a first time congressman a few years ago. In conversations with my friend, he has become pretty disillusioned with the political process, his political party, and his Rep. in general. He frequently talks about how the Rep. and the party has seemingly "sold out" on his or their views and the things that he campaigned on. Anecdotal for sure, but I have no doubt that this is far more common than we know.

While I don't know if your friend is Rep or Dem, I bet you could find staffers on both sides that have the same feelings.

In essence, our leaders don't really lead FOR OUR BEST INTEREST. Something they are paid to do.

Can anyone answer one simple question for me,,, I really need help with this.

I can't find ANY value to NOT having term limits for congress. Why are so many against term limits?

I mean, if it's good enough for President, why not other elected officials?

While it is one isolated person.. you would not have to work very hard to convince me that it is fairly common and indicative of the larger problem.

I do not believe the problem is the 2 party system per se .... the problem is that both parties are so dogmatic that they make it impossible (for a candidate or a voter) to agree with 80% of what they believe but take a different stance on the other 20%. A candidate becomes "unelectable" if they don't buy off on the whole party line.. a person such as you or me ends up with nobody to vote for except somebody that walks one party line or the other.

As for 3rd parties like the tea party and the socialists.. see above, if they agree with one party 80% and have different views on the other 20%, then they are said to be aligned with the party they agree with most and lose credibility. And the two major parties, will latch onto whatever it is the 3rd party is doing to gain support and suck that support away from them.

We have libertarians, green party, constitution party and a number of others.. one of the big reasons a viable 3rd party cannot emerge is us.. whether we want to admit it or not. the whole notion of "I'm not going to waste my vote on somebody who can't win" concept is something that has been sold to us by the establishment to keep them in power.... and a lot of people have bought into it.. heck you even see it in the primaries, it's not always about even getting the best dem or the best rep, get the one that can beat the other guy... our political parties are trying to exploit match-ups.

Jim Traficant.

I remember Jim from back when I was a junior and senior in High School. He used to come into the Perkins in Poland where I worked, and have coffee with the group of guys he hung out with. They would usually show up around 10pm. (the restaurant was a 24 hour restaurant) He was elected Sheriff after I graduated, and moved to Columbus, but i got to see a lot of the planning and such that led up to his election run.

You always knew when he was in the restaurant, because he had no mute button, and no volume control. His voice boomed, even if he was just talking about the weather. You could never miss him.

He definitely believed in what he was doing, and I actually do think that he tried to do what was best for his constituents. He ran into problems because he would side with the Democrats when i best serves the people he served, and with the Republicans when that would work best. I don't pretend that he didn't do some things that were wrong, but I bet that if the FBI crawled up any other Congressman's butt like they did to him, they could find similar, or worse, violations of the law. However, because of his combative nature, and refusal to ever sell his soul to one side or the other, he made a ton of enemies, and few friends.

I have to say that this is a very interesting thread. I believe DC has been the most accurate in his description of the ongoing problem in the "wasting my vote" and politicians having to "walk the party line to gain the party nomination".

I've seen this myself far too often. My latest examples would be John McCain and in this election cycle Jim Webb.

John McCain was a politician I very much admired during his time in the senate before running for the GOP nomination for president. He was a true maverick who did not walk the party line. IMO he sold out to gain the party nomination and I simply had a very hard time endorsing who he became.

In this election cycle, Jim Webb is a true Blue Dog Democrat that is far to the right of conventional Dems. He will never gain the nomination because he's simply not liberal enough unless he too sells out.

It's a system that is run strictly by the two parties and really has nothing to do with who we elect. The people we elect simply turn into puppets for their respective parties and not who they were.

It's most certainly a sad state of affairs.

I disagree. It is not a Republican/Democrat thing, it's a
Conservative/Liberal thing. That is who you have to align with.

That's funny because W wasn't a conservative and Clinton wasn't a liberal. They like keeping us divided by repeating that, but there's usually not a lot of truth to it.

Whats funny is you talking about things back in the day and trying to compare them to attitudes today. Why not tell us about Herbert Hoover while you are at it.

He's talking about less than 20 years ago...

It seems like only yesterday when we all gathered around the gramophone to hear President Bush's speech on how the combustion engine would forever change the American economy.

"Brought to you by Lucky Strike... LSMFT"

Exactly my point old folks. 20 years ago we still had a Nation to be proud of. Today we have a mess.

20 years ago it was a Republican/Democrat thang, today you have to be a Conservative to get anywhere in the Republican Party and a Liberal to get anywhere in the Democrat Party! Thus today it is more of a Conservative/Liberal thang.

I forgot.. 20 years ago we had recently finished arming the taliban, we had more recently had a massive troop build-up to defend Saudi Arabia, where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from, Bill Clinton was just about to begin his affair with Monica, job growth was slow, the economy was down on all fronts, the divorce rate was higher than it is today, the abortion rate was higher than it is today, OJ Simpsons civil trial was underway, people were doing the macarena, and the freakin' Cowboys won the Super Bowl.. yes, glorious times indeed.

So what were you so proud of 20 years ago?

40 was coming off of the high from the end of the Reagan administration.

I don't have an hour to list everything.

Probably the most important thang to be proud of 20 years ago
was the fact I didn't need no stupid blue pill to GIT ER DONE!!!

Well, i've always been proud of this country 40 so i dunno what you're talking about. Good or bad i rep USA

Clinton started out more liberal, but quickly learned the value of pragmatism.