Displaying 1 - 10 of 210 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Sep 13, 2018 09:29 AM
    Last: 5mo
    1k
    wwjd Wrote:
    Dave Volek Wrote:

    The D's are no answer. They too have their fair share of skulduggery and unsavory characters.

    Absolutely true. In the past I have made the satirical joke "Republicans are masters at dirty politics, and the Democrats do their best to beat Republicans at their own game"

    Its a bit like MAD's magazine's comic Spy vs Spy, or in the TV series MASH's episodes where two separate US spy agencies spend more time spying each other than they do the enemy.

    As you have pointed out, politics in general is counter productive to running a honest, fair, and efficient government.

    wwjd

    One of the first things I learned about being in a political party is that sacrifices to our integrity have to be made--if we want our party to win the election. Certain deals need to be cut, certain actions require expediency over principle, and certain discussion needs to be stifled. No well meaning person can get around those forces.

    In my book, I suggested that we monitor how much of a politician's time is spent on politics (i.e., planning to win the next election) vs. governance (trying to find that right balance to running a good society). Even if the political side is only 30%, that 30% is still inefficient!

  • Sep 13, 2018 09:29 AM
    Last: 5mo
    1k
    wwjd Wrote:

    Dave, in TDG where does ethics and code of conduct come into play?

    Some examples of what I am asking about.

    • Journalism. journalist don't reveal their sources, and there is a well defined ethical boundary that remains strong.
    • Medical profession. There is a doctor - patience confidentiality that is a high standard throughout the profession.
    • Legal Profession. Like the medical profession, Attorneys are expect to maintain a high standard of confidentiality.

    Many other professions have high standards of individual conduct. Yet when it comes to politics and running a government there almost no ethical standards. The bar is set at "Whatever is legal", but just suggests its OK to do anything that is unethical as long as its legal, and historically laws have been created so that unethical treatment of people, animals, and environment can be implemented for the purpose of self-interest and power of a elite few.

    Just seems to me that an ideal system of government would have extremely high ethical standards.

    wwjd

    While I definitely, on many things, have my positions on how the world should be run, the TDG is not about implementing my ideology or a certain ideology on society. Rather it is a process to find capable people and give them the tools to find the right balance on the issues you have brought up----and many other issues.

    I have even made the structure of the TDG rather loose. Each TDG is going to design itself based on four salient features: 1) tiered indirect elections, 2) voting based on character and capacity for governance, 3) a culture of consultation, and 4) an advisory board. There are a lot of ways to put those features together. Each TDG is going to experiment with its best guess, keep what is working well, and cast aside what is not working.

    In the beginning, the TDG will little official position on any issue. It is mostly about experimenting with electoral structure and developing the right culture. As it matures, it can and should start commenting on societal issues. I am sure it is going to find enlightened angles to most things; for sure, much better than the usual left vs right dialogue we see today.

    ---

    And yes, without as much controversy and drama, the nature of the media and government is going to change. I'm not sure exactly to what, but it will be a more positive relationship.

    A few weeks ago, I came across a thinker who advocated that each citizen be given a stipend of around $100 a year. That citizen is to put that money into whatever media he deems important. In this way, the media outlet have to relevant to the people--and not be so dependent on advertising revenue. This is definitely going to change the nature of the media--without the TDG!

  • Sep 13, 2018 09:29 AM
    Last: 5mo
    1k
    Chet Ruminski Wrote: Before TDG starts an entire infrastructure capable of handling the system at its maximum development has to be in place. Office, voting equipment, bank accounts and permanent staff. Something tangible that people can see and talk to. Across the entire country in every cell. Using your figures that is about 15,000 cells. Payroll for staff $350,000,000. Rent $225,000,000 . Equipment $150,000,000. Etcetera. At least $725,000,000 million a year. Does this coincide with your envisioned operating cost.

    Good Question

    Current political parties are pretty good at keep paid staff and office space to a minimum. I didn't get paid anything for six years, and we did all our paper work in party member homes. I think there will be more altruism with the TDG.

    There will a lot more people involved in TDG governance than western democratic governance, for sure. But I suspect that 3/4 of them will be volunteers. And I doubt neighborhood representatives (and maybe even second lowest tiers) will not have a office--and very little office expenses.

    But let's say your estimates are reasonably correct. It looks like running the TDG will be much less expensive than running the National Football League. It's a question of societal priorities.

    Starting the TDG will not require much money at all. I estimate each local TDG would need only $1000 a year to cover small expenses. Giving time is more important at this stage. So how the money is needed is not important at this stage. The elected people will figure out the best use of their limited resources----which is important training for being in government.

  • Sep 13, 2018 09:29 AM
    Last: 5mo
    1k
    TJ Wrote:

    Make Mr. Trump unelectable is the title. Remove his majority and make him work for everything is the way to clearly highlight his inability to compromise or effectively interact with others. Give Democrats the ability to provide checks and balances and push towards full accountability.

    We need to find a way to start effective messaging. Most political news is delivered on social media because citizens have microscopic attention spans. 17 out of 20 average citizens aren't looking for a good political book because they're willing to invest 5 minutes or less to catch up. They (R's) found a way to get a message out via the comman.... We haven't yet.

    Learn to speak their language then -

    Make Mr. Trump unelectable.

    TJ

    That is like closing the barn door after the horse escaped.

    The American electoral system allows people like Mr. Trump to be elected to high office. This system needs to be changed out.

    The D's are no answer. They too have their fair share of skulduggery and unsavory characters.

    As for the internet, I suspect the edge Mr Trump had with Facebook will be lost in 2020. Both sides will be employing this electioneering tool with great skill and big money. I fail to see how democracy has improved.

  • Sep 13, 2018 09:29 AM
    Last: 5mo
    1k
    wwjd Wrote:
    Dave Volek Wrote:

    It would have been interesting to be fly on the wall in the initial meeting between Trump and Kavanaugh: "I want to nominate you for SC; are you interested?". I wonder what secondary conversation happened after that.

    Its my "amateur" analysis that trump is very skilled at quickly identifying individuals that are corrupt and\or professionally ambitious. One analogy would be that one alcoholic can quickly identify other alcoholics at a social gathering. Identifying these people is a large factor of how trump has gotten where he is at now over the course of his life. Trump may not know what that person has done in the passed, but he can easily speculate that person has done shady things and is willing to do even more.

    I point this out because Kavanaugh was not on anybody's top 10 list from Republican party, yet trump selected Kavanaugh for reasons nobody will ever know. I am suggesting that Trump quickly saw in Kavanaugh traits that Trump admires in himself, and what trump values most about himself is his ability to beat the system through cheating, lying, misdirection, and deception. These things are empowering for trump because he lacks empathy, so when he goes to sleep at night, he sleeps very soundly no matter how many innocent people he has screwed over that day.

    I am not suggesting that Kavanaugh is somekind of mirror image of trump; trump is an outlier. Its just my perception (speculation) that when trump and Kavanaugh first met, trump was able to detect that under Kavanaugh's public image there are some unsavory qualities that trump values as tools powerful men use to win. Maybe trump only identified 1-2 qualities in Kavanaugh such as deceptive while looking people straight in the eye or the complete lack of empathy towards victims of sexual assault. I have no idea what Trump saw in Kavanaugh, but I am confident those traits were qualities on unethical the side of Kavanaugh, not the good side of him (good father, good husband, etc). I'd go so far to say that Trump hopes the sexual assault stories are true, but can't be proven, thus one of trump's greatest accomplishments in life would be getting a man on the SC that has sexually assaulted women. Such an achievement would validate trump's entire life and methods for success.

    Anyway, getting way off topic of DTG, which would flushed out people like trump decades ago when he was a young business man in NY running making shady property deals.

    wwjd: Another interesting analysis that probably has a lot of truth to it.

    I remember watching a documentary that American psychologists got together to produce an analysis of Hitler, which would have helped predict the war outcome. Despite not seeing him personally, they got it almost all right.

    I would wager that various entities have asked the psychological profession for advice on the best way to handle Mr. Trump.

    And in a way, Mr. Trump is the most honest politician America has ever elected. In the White House, USA is getting exactly what it saw in the election campaign and Trump's personal life.

    The trouble is that far too many people like that kind of politician. Maybe there is a psychological reasoning behind that too.

  • Sep 13, 2018 09:29 AM
    Last: 5mo
    1k
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:
    Dave, On October 28, 2016 I posted on this forum that people were lying to pollsters. I said they were too embarrassed to say they would vote for Trump but in the secrecy of the voting booth they would vote for Trump. This of course was referred to as the Bradley effect. I was the single voice (in the country ???) calling attention to the Bradley effect and saying it could win the election for Trump.

    I had an aunt who the pollsters loved calling. She had opinions on everything, and answered all their questions. She was such a good subject that they called every few months for several year. But she never voted!

    I don't trust polls either.

  • Sep 13, 2018 09:29 AM
    Last: 5mo
    1k
    Dutch Wrote:
    Dave, I've said so many times; hook them on an lie detector; that saves so much time and B.S. Mrs Ford did, why not Kavanaugh; the Dem's should have demanded that. Under oath they lie even more!!!

    My understanding is that lie detectors are not regarded as 100% certain. This uncertainty is enough not to consider the device as admissible evidence in court. Maybe the technology is better than 20 years ago, I don't know.

    For sure, it does not look good when Mr. K won't hook himself to a lie detector.

    Maybe we should put a portable, permanent lie detector on all politicians. Wearing it is part of the job!

    Nah, I think we should just build a better system of governance.

  • Sep 13, 2018 09:29 AM
    Last: 5mo
    1k
    Chet Ruminski Wrote:

    Dave said: "look at who is president."

    Dave as soon as Trump announced his candidacy maybe April of 2015. I said he could very easily win and his campaign oh "lots of good jobs" and "make America great again" should have been Hillary's campaign. It was very obvious to me but to nobody in Hillary's campaign that the working class was hurting. That all could have and still can change for the betterment of everybody. I have no illusions about any great change but I do know that any change before It is made has to have permanent features. You can bring good times and prosperity but after a few years all the people you lift up will now be right wingers cursing the day FDR was born. You can have the best idea in the world but unless you are a Trump or have a Trump it goes nowhere.

    I came to the same conclusion a little later than you. I thought Mr. Trump would find a third or fourth place finish in the R primaries, something that would have been a respectable effort and given him lots of media attention. When the R's were down to four candidates and he was at the top, I thought he could win the presidency.

    Right up to the polls closing, the mainstream media and D gave no credence to this possibility. Show how out of touch they really are.

    And I don't think Mr Trump was exactly in touch either. He just spouted off things that politicians spout out about, and he got some echos back. So he spouted more of the same things.

    In the TDG, people like Mr. Trump won't rise very high. I can't see Mr. Trump serving at the lower levels, deciding what streets need to be repaired first. Gaining this experience is necessary for the higher levels.

  • Sep 13, 2018 09:29 AM
    Last: 5mo
    1k
    Dutch Wrote:

    All of these "posts" show that this country is still in its "child" years; other countries "vet" people way before selecting or "nominating" high positions. For instance would Apple, if they would hire an new CEO, not properly "vet" a person BEFORE they even contemplate to hire such person? The way the government is doing it, is totally ass backwards. Look at how we got Trump; he lied already day one; an "under oath" thing is laughable and does not work as has been proven time upon time. Mueller is doing the "vetting" two years later. And that at an huge cost, let alone how much money (now over $350 million) Trump wasted on himself from taxpayers money, as well that we've got now all his "maffia" buddies who "sneaked" into the government via the backdoor or FOX .

    When is this country going to learn to start at "A" and end at "Z"

    Is n't time someone designs an "proper "vetting" manual, which includes an "lie detector/polygraph test, as well an "mentality test" by an "professional" which is not "bribed" beforehand.

    As I have mentioned earlier, vetting is much easier said than done.

    The Reform Party of Canada had developed a system of vetting potential candidates. It struck committees to interview interested candidates. Aside from the interview, the committees commissioned a police check. That was it. In other words, the committees had no way of knowing if the interviews were a sham or if the candidate just didn't get caught with any bad deed. Nearly all candidates passed this test, and the Reform Party got its fair share of alcoholics, misogynists, and racists running for seats in the national election. But it did have some good people as well.

    Today, both the Liberal and Conservative Parties have denied people from running as a candidate in the internal party elections. Most of these denials are based on their social media postings. So there must be some resources dedicated to this investigation (perhaps workers from competing candidates?). The party leader seems to have the authority to make this decision. I'm not sure if this is a high level of vetting. Rather I think it is more that "these posts might embarrass the party if the media get a hold of them.

    But I like your comment of "child years." While we would like to believe that western democracy is the ultimate system of governance (and we can still fix its flaws), it is in the teenage stage of what humanity can really accomplish. Eventually we will decided to shed the teenage attitude--and become adults. Hopefully sooner than later.

  • Sep 13, 2018 09:29 AM
    Last: 5mo
    1k
    wwjd Wrote:
    On my DVR I recorded the entire coverage of the Senate hearing. During Dr. Ford's testimony I personally did not detect any deception or being evasive. At best there maybe things she held back because she not asked about.

    Kavanaugh made no effort to demonstrate he had empathy for women who have been victims (its what sexual assault victims want to her from men). IMO, an innocent man would have reached out to woman everywhere and demonstrated empathy for them. Even if guilty and had sincere remorse for what he had done, he would done that (without admitting guilt directly). He could have won over enough to get confirmed. People are forgiving if they are convinced a person has seriously changed and continues do things going forward to ensure there are less victims in the future..... Kavanaugh demonstrated no empathy for victims of sexual assault. The lack of empathy does not make him guilty of the allegations, it just makes him look unqualified to be SC justice and creates the perception that he is more guilty than innocent.

    It remains an big unknown how guilty Kavanaugh is related to the accusation against him. Kavanaugh comes from a conservative background where it was common for preppy boys to drink and do unsavory things (commit crimes). Its a bit like thrill seeking, doing things just to see how far they can push the limits and not get caught. He is now a leader in that rich conservative community and would loose everything if he were to ever admit to have participated in sexual assaulting girls\women. Even his wife might be profoundly shocked to learn all that he has done.... What I am saying is even if deep down he wanted to come clean about everything, it would cost him pretty much everything; friends, family, professional career. If guilty, his best option is to be deceptive and claim 100% innocence of all accusations, and being deceptive would be a shortcut tool he has used many times to rise up through the political and professional ranks. Sometimes a minority second tier people in all professions resort to various kinds cheating to keep pace with top tier people. (aka some people's best skills are cheating and deceptive skills). If innocent, being deceptive would not be something he would be using now to get to the SC, but would be if guilty.

    Whether he is guilty or innocent, he has chosen to use Trump's method of dealing with these sexual accusation: Always deny 100% and redirect blame back onto the victim or others. Show no empathy, and create a false narrative that supporters can believe. These methods and tactic are frequently used by guilty men, not innocent men. If he is innocent, then he is getting extremely bad advice on how to convince the American public he is worthy of being a SC justice.

    Nice psychological analysis (I believe it is still an amateur analysis, but all the pieces are still fitting together). Mr. K really doesn't have a lot of choice that will keep his current life together.

    I think I saw about half of Ford's testimony and a quarter of Kavanagh's, so I must have missed some important points. When Trump finally ordered the FBI investigation, even he must have realized something was up.

    It would have been interesting to be fly on the wall in the initial meeting between Trump and Kavanaugh: "I want to nominate you for SC; are you interested?". I wonder what secondary conversation happened after that.