A contract doesn't make it state owned, you asked what would happen in default the answer is the same thing that happens every day when a party defaults on a contract the action is predetermined based upon the agreed terms in a contract.

 

No, my point is that if they isn't a third party intervention, then there's no one to set the rules in a contract. If they want to sell it to someone that doesn't want you using it, then there's no one to stop it from happening.

 

What would be your solution to that scenario?

---

I argue it's the size of government that is the problem. No entity as big as our government can avoid corruption.

 

I disagree that it's the size of the government that's the problem.  Instead i think it's who the government truly represents.


We've moved into a direction where the definition of success for both Republicans and Democrats is "Getting Reelected".  I remember watching the Daily Show, and John Oliver was interviewing one of Harry Reid's people.  And he asked him "What is the definition of success for a politician?"  and his answer was "Getting reelected."  


Politicians aim not to make things better for America, but to continue getting elected. 


Part of the problem is, HOW they go about getting reelected.  By giving into special interests and lobbyists and letting Corporations have the most say.  Elections are bought and sold like a commodity essentially.  

 

So we have politicians who's number 1 goal isn't to do what's best for his constituents.  It's to do what his constituents want them to do to the point where he can get reelected  (which has started turning us into closer to a direct democracy rather than a republic) AND -- more importantly, do whatever special interests and big corporations who fund him will do, because that's how he's going to get the money to get reelected.  Which he in turn sells to the public as a good thing, even when it might not be in their best interest.


There's a lot of misinformation out there, and it's all a part of marketing.  The spin-masters (and this is for both sides, mind you.  Not just Republicans, and not just Democrats.  Both sides are EQUALLY guilty) know how to make things look like they're better for the people than they really are. 

 

To fix our government, politicians have to represent the people.  That's why they're called representatives.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I disagree that it's the size of the government that's the problem. Instead i think it's who the government truly represents.


We've moved into a direction where the definition of success for both Republicans and Democrats is "Getting Reelected". I remember watching the Daily Show, and John Oliver was interviewing one of Harry Reid's people. And he asked him "What is the definition of success for a politician?" and his answer was "Getting reelected."


Politicians aim not to make things better for America, but to continue getting elected.


Part of the problem is, HOW they go about getting reelected. By giving into special interests and lobbyists and letting Corporations have the most say. Elections are bought and sold like a commodity essentially.


So we have politicians who's number 1 goal isn't to do what's best for his constituents. It's to do what his constituents want them to do to the point where he can get reelected (which has started turning us into closer to a direct democracy rather than a republic) AND -- more importantly, do whatever special interests and big corporations who fund him will do, because that's how he's going to get the money to get reelected. Which he in turn sells to the public as a good thing, even when it might not be in their best interest.


There's a lot of misinformation out there, and it's all a part of marketing. The spin-masters (and this is for both sides, mind you. Not just Republicans, and not just Democrats. Both sides are EQUALLY guilty) know how to make things look like they're better for the people than they really are.


To fix our government, politicians have to represent the people. That's why they're called representatives.

So campaign finance reform? Wink wink

---

I argue it's the size of government that is the problem. No entity as big as our government can avoid corruption.

You argue? Or has it been beaten in your head so long, you've accepted it as fact? It's become hegemonic, that you don't see another reason. But trust me, there's another reason.


The size of the government isn't the issue. It's who's running it that has caused the problems we've seen created and exacerbated over the past 30 years that is the problem.

---

You argue? Or has it been beaten in your head so long, you've accepted it as fact? It's become hegemonic, that you don't see another reason. But trust me, there's another reason.


The size of the government isn't the issue. It's who's running it that has caused the problems we've seen created and exacerbated over the past 30 years that is the problem.

Corruption has been a problem a whole lot longer than 30 years. If was just simply the wrong people that wouldn't be the case.


Power corrupts especially power at the federal level, you'll never give a group of people that much power and have them successfully refrain from corruption.

---

Corruption has been a problem a whole lot longer than 30 years. If was just simply the wrong people that wouldn't be the case.


Power corrupts especially power at the federal level, you'll never give a group of people that much power and have them successfully refrain from corruption.

I don't know, man. That seems to me to be either a cop out, or a defeatist attitude--maybe both.


It's obvious that when you form an organization, there will be an inclination towards corruption. We all know the saying, "power corrupts..."


So to just throw ones hands in the air and say, well we need to castrate the federal government, seems like giving up. You realize killing the federal government that is run via a democratic republic would create power vacuum. That vacuum would be filled by what?


I believe you would say, by businesses... Businesses are not run democratically...


You may not like our federal system, but if you like our democratic republic, you don't try to destroy it from within, you try to fix it's weaknesses. The weakness I see is that the oligarchs are running the show and creating policies that benefit only a small group at the detriment of the rest of us yahoos.

---

I don't know, man. That seems to me to be either a cop out, or a defeatist attitude--maybe both.


It's obvious that when you form an organization, there will be an inclination towards corruption. We all know the saying, "power corrupts..."


So to just throw ones hands in the air and say, well we need to castrate the federal government, seems like giving up. You realize killing the federal government that is run via a democratic republic would create power vacuum. That vacuum would be filled by what?


I believe you would say, by businesses... Businesses are not run democratically...


You may not like our federal system, but if you like our democratic republic, you don't try to destroy it from within, you try to fix it's weaknesses. The weakness I see is that the oligarchs are running the show and creating policies that benefit only a small group at the detriment of the rest of us yahoos.

I haven't advocated ending the federal government just reducing it's power. A majority of what the federal government does can and should be done at the state level for starters. At the state level it's much more controllable for example you and I can reasonable keep tabs on Tallahassee how often can we go to Washington? Secondly yes many things government does can be done by the private sector.


It's not a statement of defeat to acknowledge power as big as the fed is certain to be corrupt it's acknowledging human flaws.


I'm just advocating moving the constitutional republic back towards its original role.

---

I haven't advocated ending the federal government just reducing it's power. A majority of what the federal government does can and should be done at the state level for starters. At the state level it's much more controllable for example you and I can reasonable keep tabs on Tallahassee how often can we go to Washington? Secondly yes many things government does can be done by the private sector.


It's not a statement of defeat to acknowledge power as big as the fed is certain to be corrupt it's acknowledging human flaws.


I'm just advocating moving the constitutional republic back towards its original role.

 

There's a lot of corruption at the state level too, though.  


If you want to move the constitutional republic back to it's original role, then campaign finance reform is very important.  We're basically moving closer to fascism run not by a single dictator but by a group of corporations.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

There's a lot of corruption at the state level too, though.  


If you want to move the constitutional republic back to it's original role, then campaign finance reform is very important.  We're basically moving closer to fascism run not by a single dictator but by a group of corporations.

 

I don't have a problem with finance reform, I'm not an advocate of corporations = people either. I also don't view the states as perfect just more manageable as they are local governments dealing with local problems.

---

I don't have a problem with finance reform, I'm not an advocate of corporations = people either. I also don't view the states as perfect just more manageable as they are local governments dealing with local problems.

Shame the rest of the right wingers are not keen on finance reform

---

Shame the rest of the right wingers are not keen on finance reform

 

Like everything else the devil is in the details. Sometimes its the how that turns off the right not the idea itself.

---

Like everything else the devil is in the details. Sometimes its the how that turns off the right not the idea itself.

 

I don't think the right are too concerned with details.  A lot of them will gladly give government assistance to other countries, then say "Nope, can't help our own citizens.  They'll become dependent!"   You'll also hear them say "Corporations are people"  and "Limiting what corporations can do is limiting free speech!  Stop neutering the first amendment (except when we want to neuter it ourselves)  If anything I think both parties aren't concerned much with the details.


It wasn't that long ago that I considered myself a Republican.  Ronald Reagan was my hero.  This isn't the party of Reagan anymore, and Trickle Down Economics doesn't work.    Part of what helped me realize this was the Tea Party.  

 

FDR (who is a man I disagree with on many things, and who I felt wasn't as great of a president as he's made out to be, as I've said on here before) once said it well:


 

 

 

The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group.”

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

I don't think the right are too concerned with details.  A lot of them will gladly give government assistance to other countries, then say "Nope, can't help our own citizens.  They'll become dependent!"   You'll also hear them say "Corporations are people"  and "Limiting what corporations can do is limiting free speech!  Stop neutering the first amendment (except when we want to neuter it ourselves)  If anything I think both parties aren't concerned much with the details.


It wasn't that long ago that I considered myself a Republican.  Ronald Reagan was my hero.  This isn't the party of Reagan anymore, and Trickle Down Economics doesn't work.    Part of what helped me realize this was the Tea Party.  

 

FDR (who is a man I disagree with on many things, and who I felt wasn't as great of a president as he's made out to be, as I've said on here before) once said it well:


 

Sinclair Lewis had some ideas about fascism coming to the US

---

Sinclair Lewis had some ideas about fascism coming to the US

Barry Goldwater said something similar.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/3/8340433...esla-sales


"Free market" lol

---

http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/3/8340433...esla-sales


"Free market" lol

 

Um that article is a perfect example of the state oppressing free market solutions. You have governors and senators who either own dealerships or are associated with the dealerships passing legislation to snuff out competition from Musk. 

---

Um that article is a perfect example of the state oppressing free market solutions. You have governors and senators who either own dealerships or are associated with the dealerships passing legislation to snuff out competition from Musk.

Exactly. It's not a free market when this type of stuff is commonplace. No one will even bat an eye to this. Pathetic.

---

Exactly. It's not a free market when this type of stuff is commonplace. No one will even bat an eye to this. Pathetic.

Agreed this is why we can't give politicians the power to pick winners and losers it undermines what the true free market is designed to do.

---

http://www.mediaite.com/online/fl-baker-...i-gay-cake

---