The Official 2012 SDMB False Presidential Debate Thread

Politics & Elections
41

I think respect for the founders of out nation is one of the foremost pillars of American patriotism. It makes us a bit unique compared to nations that have existed more or less as-is since time immemorial and others that were so recently born (or reborn) that they have their iconic [del]founding[/del] revolutionary father figure still on embalmed display. That we have this connection to the not-so-very-long-ago fathers of our nation, and perhaps most importantly their writings, is truly a blessing to our country. I think in a way the men who gave birth to America are our own Monarchy. Instead of having a living symbol of our government, country and national unity who has their own public opinions, successes and failings, we have our pantheon of founders who, while deceased and no longer and active part of our governance, through their writings are the grounding force, the unifying presence that brings our people together and binds our government to the timeless values upon which is was founded.

The collected writings of these men including the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and Federalist Papers give us a view into the minds of the framers of those documents that we would be unwise to ignore. The written works of our founders ought be regularly consulted by our jurists at the highest levels. Our legislators, also, would do well to be intimately familiar with these documents. I’m gravely concerned with our congressmen and senators who pass legislation on questionable constitutional grounds with the attitude that the Supreme Court will sort it out if a case is ever brought. If we as a country started electing members of congress who were intimately familiar with and strong believers in our stable of founding documents we’d get much better legislation: more respectful of personal freedoms, reflecting the deep responsibility of government to the people and mindful that government too large cannot govern well.

While I believe that all of our founding fathers acted in good faith and offered the very best of their ideas, there are a few cases where I disagree with their choices. Granted, though, I have the advantage of scoring their work after history has had near 250 years to ferret out what had worked and what has not. Alexander Hamilton was probably the founder I least agree with. While I can see his idea that a bill of rights would lead government to respect only those enumerated rights has come true to one extent on another in our nation’s history, I feel we’d be far worse off without our first 10 amendments. Other issues have been fixed: I think having senators elected by state governments was a holdover from aristocratic Europe and we were right to give the vote in Senate races directly to the people. My biggest complaint about Hamilton is how he made our government a financial institution unto itself. While again, I have the luxury of criticizing with history having judged already, I believe that had he not pushed for such concepts as sovereign debt we’d be in much better shape today.

42

Good luck, man!

Tripler
Come on back!

43

Thomas Jefferson once indicated that “The earth is for the living. . .”, implying that whatever happened, and whomever lived in the past, they have no current vested interest in the current affairs of the world because. . . they’re dead. I it’s an important view to keep, but it’s equally important, if not more, to understand what choices were made in the past and why those choices were made. Policies and decisions made in the past have shaped the situation and world we live in now, so it’s vitally important to understand the history behind programs, policies and events. With that, it’s important to study history and analyze the present to better know what the immediate implications in a course of action are, as well as their second and third order effects. Looking back at history does this. Reverence of the history makers, well. . . that doesn’t really lend anything practical to current policy making and may actually detract from the logical development of policies.

  The founding fathers pulled off an incredible stunt—forcibly evicting an oppressive regime that was better armed, outnumbering, and far better trained.  The military skill and political ability of the insurgency—yes, the founding fathers were in today’s terms insurgents, depending on what side of the fence you’re on—capitalized on logistical weaknesses of the British Army, the geography of the continent, and the informational sphere of influence.  They then set up a new national government which was inclusive of scattered sovereign states, and built a federal system around it.  After one failure of a document-based government (the Articles of Confederation), they developed the current Constitution, which held a relatively stable government for the rest of their natural lives.  These guys banded together, started and ran a successful insurgency, and brought peace to their continent.  How can these men and women *not* be held in the highest regard for a gargantuan task by any measure?

Further, with the war, they had a keen understanding of human nature based in reading the classics and studying a multitude of subjects throughout their lives. They were products of the Enlightenment, and were polymaths—something you’re not going to find often today. As such, they took their fresh memory of oppression, and applied their talents to building a documented structure which guaranteed basic human rights and freedoms, in their 3 MPH world. And that 3 MPH world will always exist—FaceBook will shutdown, the Internet will someday 404 completely, Fox/CBS/NBC will go offline, and Twitter will be shot down by a 12-gauge. But people will still remain, and neighbors will always be there to talk to. Artificial societies will at some point be threatened and can cease to exist, but people will always be there. We should respect the decisions and flexible policies these fine men and women put together to help guide the real world—again, a gargantuan task.

 I think it goes without saying there’s no way in the world these fine people could have foreseen “Icanhascheezeburger” or the pathetic vapidity of the Kardashians.  They could not have realized the ravages of modern chemical warfare or development of the machine gun.  They would never have been disgusted at the abuses of the judicial system by frivolous lawsuits or heavy-hitting weight of corporations in legislative efforts.  They knew an agricultural world, and they developed a system of government around basic human existence—away from the distractions of modern media and marketing.  However, other great people of the time could have done the same; the founding fathers were products of their environments.  We need to properly respect them for their physical achievements, and their moral courage in setting up a system of government well-balanced and for the people (instead of something personally benefitting the “founding fathers”).  But that document is not a holy relic, it is not a book delivered by angels from up-on-high, nor was it brought to us by some mystical extraterrestrial.  It was written by *people*: people with exceptional moral courage; people with a broad base of knowledge; and people with the time, patience, and secrecy to properly deliberate this document.  

 We need to remember the Constitution is a fundamental benchmark of basic human liberties and freedoms, and must use it as a guide to current policies—but as a guide only, it is not an end-all, be all solution to everything under the sun.  Modern society and politics must be kept in mind when applying the fundamentals of the Constitution to current decisionmaking.

Tripler
. . . gotta run.

44

I’m fine with it, but they have to sit at the far, far righthand side of the panel, and they have to wear light grey colored suits and matching ties.

Tripler
. . . and they have to get caught up on the questions.

45

(Apologies for tardiness, I had a loooong day at work yesterday.)

If you gathered up every thing everyone who signed the Constitution ever put down in writing, you’d almost certainly have a wide swathe of crazy ideas to pick and choose from. If you picked a hundred scientists from modern day, and gathered together everything they believe, you’d have a few instances of people believing that cattle mutilations are real or that the Earth is hollow.

In his private time, Thomas Jefferson was a staunch supporter of the French Revolution, much past the point where it was clear that it was just an excuse for murder, and he started the idea of legal secession - which resulted in the Civil War. I can say firmly that I disagree with his stance on both of those subjects.

But the thing is that even if you have a bunch of crazy and highly opinionated men, they all had to come to an agreement in the end. They worked for some four months considering every suggestion and objection that anyone could come up with, to create our system of government. For anything which you may not like about what they came up with, it’s likely that they considered that objection and decided against it because of some other issue that they thought would be even worse which would be opened up by doing it a different way. Knowing what their thinking was helps us to make sure that we don’t mess ourselves up by committing a mistake that they spent four months of hard work to protect us from.

Many people object to the lobbyist system, for example. Well, the reason that we have a lobbyist system is because it’s the job of our representatives to consider the opinions of the minorities and not trample on them, which would happen if their only concern was mass popularity. With minority groups lobbying them, they have one foot in with the minorities and one foot in with the popular vote. Personally, I don’t like the lobbyist system, because only groups who are interested in playing politics get a voice, and I suspect a lot hold back because they think it’s ‘dirty’. But I would never work to remove the system unless I was certain that I could put something in which took into mind what the founders had wanted, and ensured that this still happened.

I don’t think that politicians were smarter in the 18th century, but the ones who created our nation were very industrious and spent a significant amount of effort to come up with our nation. They aren’t infallible, but it does behoove us to understand their choices and make sure that we don’t fix what isn’t broken.

46

Thank you, candidates.

I will post the next question this afternoon. In the meantime I will attempt to line up a candidate to fill in for Stelios.

47

Ok, DMark has agreed to be our fourth. I figured he deserved an invitation. He will be getting his answers in for the existing questions and we will get moving shortly.

48

Thank you Jonathan Chance, and my esteemed colleagues.

Hello, my name is DMark and I am honored to be the Presidential Candidate for the SLP – Screaming Liberal Party.

I come from a very political family of hard-core political conservatives. Both my father and my older brother were elected officials. Listening to their rants of nonsense my entire life, I know exactly where this political bile originates and how it festers.

Allow me to dive right into some of my platforms and personal beliefs.

I have a pretty simple philosophy – help those who need and want help and leave your religious, bigoted dogma at the door.

Education is one of my major priorities. Start off by paying qualified teachers a salary that is 20% more than what they would earn in the private sector of their field of study. This will get the brightest and the best of the professions to teach students to become brighter and better in those fields. For at least every dollar we spend in the military budget, match that with schools; new or renovated buildings, computers, technical equipment and labs, arts programs, vocational training, gymnasiums and sports programs just to name a few.

The wealthiest members of society most certainly should be paying far more taxes than the poorest in society. No loopholes, no sneaky back door off-shore accounts; it should be a badge of honor to someday reach the income level where you are required to pay 40% or more in taxes! This would prove you can be wildly successful and still help those in need.

You have total ownership of your body. Birth control, abortion, doctor assisted suicide, consensual sex with adults, prostitution, drug use – it is none of anyone else’s business what you decide to do or not to do with your body. No laws should prevent anyone from doing so.

Gay marriage will be legalized immediately.

Marijuana will be legalized immediately. I would also make hard drugs legal, with the stipulation that they will be administered free of charge, but only in out-care facilities by medical professionals, along with counseling to help those who wish to get clean.

Hand guns and automatic rifles will be banned, unless you are in the military or on the police force. You can keep your hunting rifles to shoot game or protect your home from intruders.

Illegal immigrants will be given a green card if they have lived here and worked here for over five years and do not have a felony criminal record. Opening doors to further legal immigration will be done fairly; find a job and/or sponsor and work for five years before applying for citizenship.

I would also work with other countries to ensure the same immigration rights for our citizens who wish to live and work in their country for a few years or longer. Having lived abroad for 14 years, I know the value that comes with cross cultural exchange and I would strongly encourage our own citizens to venture out and see the world first hand – be it for student exchange or for longer term professional experience.

Religion will be separated from anything to do with the government – period. And yes, that does mean taking the words “under God” back out of the Pledge of Allegiance, as it was originally written.

I believe we, as a civilization, are singlehandedly ruining our planet. It is time to step up and improve mass transit and end this endless cycle of wasting energy and fossil fuels. We need to invest every human resource we have to find, and use, workable solutions and alternatives. We cannot afford to wait.

Well, that is a little about me and few of the issues I care about deeply.

I look forward to this debate, and will do my best to get up to speed with the rest of you.

49

Question #1:
“In the current economic climate federal aid to the states has become one of the largest factors in state and local budgets. This aid often comes with requirements. Should the federal government be supplying such aid at all and if so, should it come with strings attached and what sort?”

Federal Government represents funding from all 50 states, and money that is allocated at the federal level should reflect this.

Nobody should be punished because their state has idiots in charge of the money. For this reason, it is probably best that the Federal Government allocate funding for specific purposes.

For instance, if the goal is to create jobs in your state to get the economy going, and the plan is to rebuild infrastructure by building/repairing roads and bridges in your state, the state will need to provide specific documentation fulfilling that specific mandate.

Too often local and state officials will want to cherry pick funding (skimming a bit here and there to cover costs for state officials’ retirement funds) and this is why it is necessary for the Federal Government to step in to ensure the tax dollars go where specified and not be tossed in different directions on a regional whim; if this means nickel and diming it, and issuing funds directly from the federal government to the creditors, so be it.

I understand that many states with competent officials are struggling to fund past errors and mismanagement of funds from prior incompetent elected official at local and state levels. Thus it really is necessary for the Federal Government to step in and provide necessary funding for certain projects – but it is also necessary to ensure all 50 states follow the directives to the letter.

Will Mississippi be happy that funds are allocated to California? Probably not. Will Indiana be happy that some of their tax dollars are helping Illinois? Doubtful.

However, as a nation, we have always been very generous when a disaster strikes – hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, violent storms in cities, towns and small rural areas we have probably never even heard of before – so it only makes sense that we also step up when the disaster in a state is economic. We just have to make sure the money goes exactly where it is intended to go, for the specific purpose it was allocated for in the first place.

50

“The founding fathers of the United States (i.e. Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, Franklin et al) are held in high regard by certain segments of the American public. Do you feel that this reverence is appropriate and should the founding father’s views on issues be used to guide current policy? Also, discounting slavery, what position of the founding fathers do you disagree with and why?”

The founding fathers created a rather magnificent blueprint and the Constitution has served us well.

However, those same founding fathers did not own a crystal ball and could not possibly have foreseen all of the changes to society since they met to create their plans.
So yes, they certainly do deserve reverence, but tempered with the reality that times and the nation have evolved.

The basic concept of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is as true today as it was then, and should be adhered to. The problem is defining what is life today, what liberties do we or should we have or not have, and what constitutes happiness and happiness for whom?

Obviously I am not a fan of the “right to bear arms” concept. At the time it was conceived, people lived in fear of an army sneaking into the country and suddenly marching down Main Street in their pretty red coats and doing some pillaging.

However, I think the founding fathers were referring to having a nice flintlock handy to blast a few powdered wigs – not owing a handgun to hold up a 7/11. In the meantime, we now have an excellent military who can handle things just fine and let us know if an armada is approaching our shores, without the help of Chuck down the street and his garage full of automatic weapons.

There is absolutely no need for anyone in the country to own an automatic rifle or handgun. The vast majority of the American public agrees with this, but the NRA has been one of the most powerful and insidious group of bullies in Washington DC.

I am guessing my polling numbers just dropped dramatically in parts of the Bible Belt, but somebody has to stand up to this gun frenzy nonsense and say no.

51

I hope I am now up to speed and will step back and allow our moderator to ask the next question, and let our other esteemed candidates have the podium. Thank you.

52

Thank you, DMark.

The questions will now get a bit trickier and, hopefully, more real world.

This is, by the way, our first reader suggested question. It comes to us from Gyrate. The candidates will have until Wednesday morning to play with this question.

53

I appreciate the inclusion of my question and would like to add that while I am aware that in a “real” election it would be impractical to openly discuss your negotiating strategy ahead of time, I am hoping that in this forum the candidates will be able to provide responses more constructive than mere variations on “I can’t openly discuss my negotiating strategy ahead of time”.

54

I’m glad you asked, Gyrate. Wouldn’t it be nice if everything a candidate for president promised just came true upon his inauguration? Nice when your guy wins, of course, but then…

My biggest obstacle with congress will certainly be my desire to put discretionary spending in the hands of the cabinet secretaries instead of congress. This is a critical step in taking the money out of politics and ending forever the culture that rewards pork brought back home with donations and votes. Congress would make law and set a total budget by department, but the secretary of each department, not the congress would divvy up how each department’s budget is spent. It does not escape me that this will be extraordinarily difficult. I will pursue this goal with a three pronged plan: I would immediately build support in every state to participate in a constitutional convention to adopt an amendment taking away much of the budgetary power of congress. I would campaign heavily for popular support of this and other measures for taking money out of politics. Lastly I would propose a less drastic measure to congress and agree to withdraw my support for a constitutional amendment in exchange for its passage. Success will require that I be elected with a Republican majority in both houses; a majority, frankly, not rich in well-entrenched incumbents. It will require a focused, vocal popular movement in every constituency. I am committed to achieving this goal whether or not it can be done in my term and whether or not it will first benefit the cabinet of the party opposite. Strategy-wise, I must admit that if I were to be elected with an opposition congress I’d start with some more common-ground policies first.

I intend to bring as much of congress on board as is possible with this change to the budget and expenditure process and indeed, all of my agenda by giving them genuine input to the budget and policy of each department and deeply involving them in the discretionary budgeting. The idea is this: an individual congressman or senator will actually have more influence on how his or her state is benefited by the federal government than they have now as one of five hundred thirty-five. The horse-trading pork-for-votes scheme will end, as congress will not have final say on how, say, the department of transportation spends its money. I will set the tone that the budgetary process will be non partisan and will not consider the electoral votes cast of the state nor general political attitude of the state. Each department will have its operating budget and will divide its discretionary budget to the states and territories more or less by population. No state will receive more than 10% more or less than their population would entitle them to except in cases where disaster relief makes this impossible.

I feel co-operation with congress requires the president to have a real two-way relationship with each and every member. To this end I will invite each state’s entire congressional delegation, governor and lieutenant governor to meet with me for at least two hours no less than three times a year, one state at a time. I will listen carefully to the concerns of each state’s elected officials of both parties and we will together craft solutions. We will work to build consensus for both my agenda and theirs with the delegations of other states. Delegations will have the opportunity to lobby me or the appropriate cabinet secretary for redress of grievances, discretionary spending, or any action the executive branch may lawfully take that will benefit that state or the nation as a whole.

Whether it be legislation, spending, or a change in the way the executive discharges its duties that has an impact in their home state, I will frequently and publicly give credit to senators and congressmen who work with me towards positive outcomes for their state and our nation. By doing this we can give our elected officials the credit they need to seek funds and votes for re-election but remove the expenditure of more and more money from the process. We also give every member an influence in policy and the budget. As president, being better informed about local needs I will be better able to bring policy to our country than benefits all. I will also be able to direct my cabinet officers to spend budget in a way that satisfies national interests with local impacts.

55

Question #3:

“Setting out a policy position is easy. Getting it implemented is hard. How do you plan to achieve buy-in to your proposals amongst members of Congress, particularly those from opposing parties and those representing local influence groups with opposing interests?”

This is an excellent question.

You are correct that setting a policy position is relatively easy – but getting it implemented is hard.

This is where courage comes into play. Many things we take for granted now – a woman’s right to vote, equal rights for all races, interracial marriage – these were once considered crazy, radical ideas that would never be accepted by mainstream America.

The American public has proven to be far smarter than that.

Let’s take the example of Gay Marriage.

For instance, I am sure there are groups of people who staunchly oppose the idea of Gay Marriage, but I also firmly believe most Americans have given this some thought and see no reason to deny equal rights to someone based solely on their sexual orientation.

I would submit a non-binding proposal to both the House and the Senate that would simply state, “I am in favor of legislation legalizing Gay Marriage.”
No discussion, no debate – a simple yes/no vote is all that is required.

Once the results of that non-binding vote are in, we can proceed.

Assuming, for instance, that there is a majority in favor in both the House and the Senate, all that is necessary now is to get those elected officials who voted in favor to come together and prepare a comprehensive bill, ensuring that those who originally voted yes will remain in the yes camp.

However, let’s say both the House and Senate vote no to this non-binding resolution. I would go back to square one and seek the aid of grass-roots organizations and mobilize them to either attempt to change minds, or seek new candidates in the next election who would support such a proposal.

Social networking has become an integral part of our society and I would ask Americans to start spreading the word and standing up for what they believe. Speak out to your friends and family and get them to contact their elected officials and let their voices be heard. It only take a few quick key strokes on a computer, or text on a phone, or make a phone call or even go old school and write a letter – there are many ways you can and should make your opinions known. Then, when the time is right, I will re-submit the non-binding resolution.

Trickier would be if, for instance, the House votes in favor, but the Senate votes against this non-binding resolution.

I would put all the names of the people who voted against Gay Marriage in a single one-page ad in some of the larger newspapers, and ensure this news gets posted everywhere on the Internet. I want voters to know exactly how their elected official voted. I am sure for a few elected officials, this would probably work well in their home states – but my guess is there will be far more elected officials who will not be finding as many friendly voices back home. It is one thing to vote in Washington and hope nobody really notices back home, but it is quite another thing to have your name thrust out into public view - showing your vote against a simple, one sentence, non-binding proposal.

There is no wiggle-room. You cannot play games and say you didn’t vote in favor simply because you didn’t like some provision on page 147 paragraph six.

You have publically stated flat out that you are against legalizing Gay Marriage – period.

My philosophy is simple, these non-binding resolutions will also be simple and the answers will be a simple yes or no.

I will not waste time on policies that have no chance of success, but will work behind the scenes to ensure there is a better chance of success the next time. If that means campaigning for specific candidates, taking my policies to the talk shows and campuses, enlisting the help of celebrities as well as small hometown organizations, so be it.

There are people who have been fighting ignorance for decades – and yes, sometimes it does take longer than we think – but eventually the good fight will pay off.

56

The average person wants to get into politics because they think the government is bad, corrupt, run by fools, or whatever. Their whole premise is that they can come in, fix things up, and be a hero. Alternately, a person comes into politics with the belief that one party is right and the other one is wrong, has foolish notions, and irrational fears.

Personally, if I see one person saying, “I don’t want to give people welfare because it’s a bad precedent to pay someone for doing nothing.” And I see another person saying that we’re just talking about a safety net, to catch people in a bad situation and get them back on their feet. Unlike the parties, I don’t see things like this as an either-or situation. Both parties are formed of intelligent men and women, who have based their beliefs on their life experiences. They’re not just spouting off nonsense because they’re delusional or subversive.

As someone’s whose job it is to lead the government effectively, being able to understand the issues that both sides raise on an issue and accept those as legitimate would, I hope, let me come up with proposals that factor in everything from every side.

A good example is balancing the budget. The Republican party wants to cut social programs and the Democratic party wants to raise taxes. Okay, well if we accept that dozens of other countries have proved that medical spending can be reduced by half without any impact to the health of the population - it’s just not spending money to build hospitals with million dollar fountains outside. Well then, there you go. I haven’t reduced our social programs. I haven’t raised taxes. I’ve just cut the US Federal budget by something like 16% and done it in a way that circumvents all objections from either side.

The big thing that I think I bring to the table is clear plans for how to get what both sides want to have happen, done. I will work however many hours it takes, talking with experts and politicians from either side, to come up with whatever outside of the box is needed to come up with solutions that move the country forward and get around the deadlock of two opposing factions with different worldviews.

Many times, I might not be able to convince them that the grand idea is feasible or worthwhile. But of twenty, I should be able to sell five, and that’s going to be five things that work towards getting the country solid and keeping it an exceptional player on a global scale.

57

**
Setting out a policy position is easy. Getting it implemented is hard. How do you plan to achieve buy-in to your proposals amongst members of Congress, particularly those from opposing parties and those representing local influence groups with opposing interests?**

Interesting question, and it drives right to the heart of politics—influence. And it asks the question of influence personally, logically, and politically.

Having a basic policy position is pretty easy, after all, we’re all products of our environment, with our own tastes and dislikes. What’s difficult is translating policy into end states or goals—and that’s where my whole argument revolves around, but I’ll get there in a minute. Politicians often fail to understand that there’s two kinds of policies—the “proactive policy,” or one that aims to set up a situation or produce a tangible/realizable goal; and there’s an “action policy,” or one that aims to maintain a certain status quo or to handle new events as they come down the pike. For example, a proactive policy would include a bill to purchase or recover foreclosed homes in major cities and suburbs, in order to turn those lots into more open green space. The ends: more parks and open areas for neighborhoods to relieve congestion. The means is by a policy to invoke our ways (financial capital through purchase, or legal means through the courts) through the policy. Another would be an action policy to limit imports of certain products: due to over-poaching of elephants, the US has limited importing and sales of ivory products to pieces that can be documented to be prior to a certain date. The endstate is a reduction on demand for ivory, and realized reduction in the killing of wild elephants. The means involve enforcement of the import policy via inspectors of the Treasury Service and DHS.

What it boils down to, is a reachable, definable goal that a President can sell to those directly and secondarily involved—and at the lowest level. Are the good people of South Carolina really going to give a . . . pardon the pun, a damn about a new, federally funded hydroelectric plant on the Souris River? Nope. But the people in Towner, ND might. And that’s where the transparency of endstates comes into play. Members of Congress sponsoring and constituents providing the federal funding need be engaged from the beginning. Everyone must have a chance to speak, and all participants must realize that in any debate, all opinions—at a minimum—must be heard, and be judged on their merits. To use a quote I’ve used in the past before major endeavors that cost a lot of money and need serious discussion, “Talk is cheap. . . and I’ve got a lot of pocket change.”

I think all of us can agree that there are a set of core values that are openly uniform, and help filter out some of the odder policies; nobody in this economy, in their right mind would vote to fund a study of UFOs. We all realize that’s a waste of money at present.  However, there are some unscrupulous politicians ‘on the field’, that have a lot at personal stake on some issues—and those stakes are not always brought out into the open.  The ties that politicians make with corporations and lobby groups cloud issues and force votes away from logical discussion and debate.  This is why I believe in Congressional term limits and replacing the current Congress (it’ll take a few years to vote out *all* of the incumbents).  Change the entire body to new people, ones that are new to the process and don’t know how to wheel and deal to their personal benefit, and have come directly from the population with a good understanding of what the issues are anymore.  There’ve been too many career politicians that have been too far removed for too long, that don’t understand what the issues are.  Replace them. All dirty laundry needs to be aired out.

 Along with that, I openly call for more open publication and communication of meetings and debates, and would openly pay out of pocket to fund more public access (C-Span, community access channels). I encourage more civil interest in the proceedings of all levels of government.  An uninformed, lethargic constituency is more dangerous than a runaway legislature.  Open up discussions between forthright folks and publicize debates *during* deliberation to set clear, measureable goals, and you will have far better policies and a clearer understanding of why the Congress acts the way it does.  And I think through that, buy-in to proposals will be met with far less frustration and difficulty if we could break up and replace the current network (especially on a regular basis).

Tripler
Hell, if you don’t vote for me–vote for someone else other than the incumbent!

58

Thank you all for your thorough and considered responses.

59

I’m baaaaaack :slight_smile:

Yeah, had a nice little stay in hospital. Everyone was very good with me (especially the nurses, some of whom were absolutely stunning, which helped:)) and I’m well on the road to recovery now. Looking at how this thread’s developed since I’ve been away, it seems that DMark is very much a man after my own heart, and supports pretty much the same policy positions I do. With that in mind, I think I’ll take this opportunity to bow out gracefully and enjoy this thread from the sidelines. All the best in the upcoming straw election everyone!

60

Excellent. This alleviates the need to have you bumped off later :wink: Seriously, though, glad you’re ok. I’m sure DMark will be a liberal lion after your own heart.