Good luck with that idea. You know southern Oregon and Northern California wanted to create their own state and even that was stomped out. The money stealers aren't just going to hand over their money to a bunch of seperatists.
One has to have seen America change to realize the truth of the statement. Our federal government was hijacked a long time ago. There has been an internal struggle going on to hold it to the standards of the 1787 constitution. Those trying to do that were constantly undermined by collisions between government offices and corporations subverting the American way. This amounted to war on nations to take their resources and convert their governments into ones that would collude with the corporations to make profits for an elite few. The oligarchy. There is awesome potential for good in the constitution. It lives mostly in our hearts and minds at this time. All we have to do is agree upon a few of its most potent, prime intentions, then take action with the legal mechanisms placed there for those purposes.
That is currently true, but events threaten to change that. By our lack of political unity or control over politics, that instability threatens to turn us into something resembling the vast majority of countries.
That is a very decent position. Investment in the original principles of 1787 as a political base will end the peoples loss of control. Given some time demanding acceptance of those principles from candidates, and that they speak to those principles will have a corrective influence that cannot be overestimated. Americans know those principles, all they have to do is affirm them and agree, then demand politicians match them In order to get a vote.
But and there is a term for this, political ignorance by choice or because one simply has to live and work in order to pay their way and go about life, and there is simply no time for it. Honestly, how many of us have the wealth and time to keep up with 500 to 1000 page bills going through Congress, and committee?
Very good point. Which is why I conceived of the "Principal Party". The idea is we the people agree on a few fundamental principals that defeat the negative nature of those fluffy corporate lobbyist nightmares, and ONLY vote for officials or candidates that speak very well to those principals. The first principal is the right to "alter or abolish" government abusive to our unalienable rights. The second is the right to social mechanism that enables the public to share information vital to properly and thoroughly conducting Article V (alter or abolish codified), or manifesting the purpose of free speech. Then the vote must be secured uniformly with absolute accountability. Last is campaign finance reform so corporations cannot buy offices by unlimited funding to the candidates that will legislate in ways that bring them the most profits.
I wouldn't say America is shitty, but there's many places I'd rather live. I do not plan to retire here.
Technically I'm part of the problem. I never vote. Only because I feel to vote you should be educated on who you're voting for. I hate people that rigidly stick to party affiliations for who they vote for. They don't know their policies they just say o he's Democrat or he's republican so he's my guy, or she's my girl. That's almost as bad as not voting at all in my opinion.
The real Revolution (big R) must occur in the minds of every one of us, else no political revolution (little r) will EVER succeed in bringing about anything more than place a different, yet just as ineffective, lid on the ugliness of our lives. The best that could happen to humanity is that we'd all suffer a form of amnesia that might individually and collectively set us free from the chains of our cherished grievances. Maybe then we could stop being dominated by the myriad ghosts of the past. It's our memories, whether real, imagined, or programmed, coupled with our innate and highly counterproductive propensity for seeking vengeance that energizes these seemingly perpetual (yet entirely unnecessary) vicious circles of hatred and violence by which we commonly suffer, and automatically, as if by some diabolical natural law, induce in others to suffer as well.
i think we should hold off on the revolution, until you come up with a better course of action. USA isn't doing all that bad compared to the rest of the world, maybe we need to improve things... not destroy them, in the hopes that during the apocalypse that will follow, our lives will become soooo much better. i mean finally google will stop spying on my traffic routes.
Yeah, I need to read the revolution's manifesto before I blindly support overthrowing things the way things are now. Not just any change is good change.
usa needs a communist revolution establishing a vanguard party to lead america in its development to socialism wunsennnn!
Not an issue! Because of what brybry12345 points out about the huge amount of text politicians produce. Sometimes they do that to hide additional things in the bills. Then, other officials will not even read it, just sign it. BTW, my post you quoted had a big typo my phones spellchecker made even worse, I'm reposting that part here, corrected, because it speaks to your point comprehensively. Meaning that your point about people voting on party lines without examining candidates positions on issues can be dealt with by making candidates address constitutional intent BEFORE they get the publics vote. In other words; representative government has a theoretical advantage for the public, IF the candidates can be trusted. Representatives should be experts in dealing with the complexity of bureaucracy. Their intentions can be tested, then their proficiency tested in office. In this "willy nilly" environment of undefined constitutional intent, candidates do not have to make hard statements of their adhesion to constitutional intent relating to decisions they will be making for constituents. Mostly because they know, the public does not know, constitutional intent. So, if their decisions do not reflect that intent, they have a built in excuse structure and can successfully run again BECAUSE there is no campaign pressure from alternative candidates that speak very well to the constitutional intent that is supposed to be represented from the office they are running for.
no dont put words in my mouth but what makes you think everyone in soviet russia was poor? men had a life expectancy 7 years higher then they do now in russia wunsennnn!