Government's People or the Peoples' Government ...

1. 77

   Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago

   Which do you prefer?
   I prefer the latter.
   Who wouldn't?

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Liberals, particularly those of the far left.

      replyreport
   2. 51

      poetryman6969posted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The most astonishing thing to me is to discover that almost everyone with power and authority inside our government serves the needs and wants and desires of foreign criminals (aka illegal aliens, aka undocumented democrats).  The general attitude seems to be law abiding, legal people be damned.  It is as though everyone in government is bribed by foreign criminals to serve the treasonous whims of foreign criminals.   A glaring example of this is:  The unemployment rate for black teens in Chicago is well over 50%.  Why is Obama so anxious to bring in millions of  foreign criminals and give them jobs and benefits?  It makes no sense that he would ignore the very people he said he was organizing the community for when he was back in Chicago and instead serve the desires of foreign criminals to get what they want.  Also, why would anyone back the notion of Sanctuary cities unless you like the notion of America being a shooting gallery wherein foreign criminals can take out legal Americans with apparent impunity.
      
      All of this would make no sense if you did not know that democrats believe they are buying Latino votes with American lives.

      replyreport
   3. 59

      Michael-Milecposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Is any difference in those two? Government ?!-  IF Those elected individuals would like to know what " do we prefer"- they would honor the Constitution, cease dishonesty, greed, and become "people,s servants." Who needs dictators and tyrants anyway?

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         +1   Thanks, Michael. Thanks and thanks again:
         
         < " If those elected individuals would like to know what We prefer, they would honor the Constitution, cease dishonesty and greed, and be the people's servants! >
         
         <" Who needs dictators and tyrants anyway?"> 
         Yes, WHO does, indeed!?!

         replyreport
2. 72

   Ruth Angelposted 8 years ago

   In this particular juncture of my life, I find that I have no preference when it comes to politics. Both sides are equally corrupt so to say. Both sides will falsify facts to win an election, both sides will also promote false promises of change, when really change can only become effective when it can pass through congress. I feel more change could be implemented if we didn't have so many different opinions that effected the final decisions. When you factor religious morals into politics, nothing can be accomplished.  I wonder when politics became more about benefiting political officials and less about benefiting society.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      The answer to that is ; It happened when Americans became politically lazy !  Letting partisan bull###t become our vetting process !  What you gonna do about it ?

      replyreport
   2. 71

      rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Good post! I sense apathy in it and hope you are not discouraged to help change it to something more like self government. The oligarchy has taken our government over and is trying to brainwash us with derisive tactics to achieve their goal of owning it and our destiny. As long as we have the vote they have not won yet. But as long as we are caught up in trivial ideological arguments and think we are in charge of something, nothing will change.
      
      Term Limits, Federally Funded Campaigns and Lobby Reform is the only way to make it our own again.

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Can you explain this?  Federally Funded Campaigns

         replyreport
         1. 71

            rhamsonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            To get campaign money a candidate would have to get signature's on petitions to determine their share of election funding available from the government. More signature's, more money. If candidates could show no support they could run on their own money and no outside help if they wished but it would be very hard for them. The time that they would be allowed to campaign would also be determined to prevent those with inexhaustible self funding to span the longer time others could afford.

            replyreport
   3. 88

      GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      ".  I wonder when politics became more about benefiting political officials and less about benefiting society."
      
      It could have been around 200,000 BC when the first caveman group elected a leader, but was more probably closer to 30,000 BC when the first tribe decided they needed a council to share to load.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 77

         Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         sharing the LOAD = Responsibility
         
         Responsibility
         1 duty, task, function, job, role, business.
         2 blame, fault, guilt, culpability, liability.
         3 trustworthiness, common sense, sense, maturity, reliability, dependability.
         4 authority, control, power, leadership. Dictionary.
         
         So, in the beginning it all starts when politicians are chosen to "share the load:"
         
         When they were elected, they seemed so: (Definition 3) Trustworthy, Mature, Reliable and Dependable!
         
         For awhile they share responsibility: (Definition 1) Duty, Task, Function, Job, Role, Business.
         
         They also share: (Definition 4) Authority, Control, Power, Leadership …  which increases in time.
         
         Eventually ...
         
         They share: (Definition 2) Blame, Liability, and Culpability
         
         Thanks GA

         replyreport
3. 0

   ahorsebackposted 8 years ago

   Something happened in congress in the mid or even early 1800's , corporatism ,  industrialization ,  monetary influences  protected by the lack of effective and  meaningful media  , allowing the secrecy of $ to influence political voting  , the double standards of influence peddling  ,The , " I'll scratch your back " way of "leadership "  - it's only gotten worse with the apathy of the voters .

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      They became irresponsible.
      irresponsible adjective
      reckless, rash, careless, thoughtless, foolhardy, foolish, impetuous, impulsive, devil-may-care, delinquent, derelict, negligent, hare-brained; unreliable, undependable, untrustworthy, flighty, immature. ANTONYMS sensible.

      replyreport