Politics Octagon

[Bicycle_B]

This thread is offered as a place to carry forward political discussions from other threads, where the other thread's OP wishes to focus their thread instead of have a wider political discussion.

If I had the energy/focus, I would want a thread where such discussions were noted and classified so that repetitive remarks could be noted, and the discussion would eventually restrict itself to something that is new.  I bet if I really tried, I could do a decent job of moderating, though disagreements about what is "new" would still emerge.  But I don't have that focus!  So this thread will probably be more or less unmoderated, much like the Octagon in martial arts is a relatively unmoderated place. 

Still preferring to keep discussion focused on issues rather than any ad hominem attacks if possible.

Ok, gang, have at it.

[Bicycle_B]

Btw, a fairly wide ranging discussion is in progress at http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/anyone-else-not-'get'-the-protestmarch-mentality/msg1394856/#new.  The topic of protests being discussed from several viewpoints.

[iris lily]

Thats nice, but the only political thread where meandering discussion is verbotten the Small
Acts of Daily Resistence.

I predict this thread will sink like a stone.

Perhaps Dollar Slice will discuss the idea of a law that requires legislators to act in the best interest of their constituents.

I think any such law would be so big, so broad, so impractical to carry out that I can't support it. But thats not on me to support it, it is on the persn who is proposing it.

[Bicycle_B]

Hi, Iris Lily! 

Re sinking - ah, you may be right.

Re the proposed law being too broad - I think it will sink faster than this thread because there's no way to get an agreed definition of the people's interest.  Which is why I liked some of your original points; I just didn't want to jam up the daily acts thread.

[Poundwise]

Okay, I don't know where the right place for this is, so I'm going to put my rant here.

To continue my poop-sandwich metaphor (or simile, or whatever) from one of the other threads:  you know, I think that if there are few things that a huge non-controversial majority of people in America, red and blue, city or country, agree on, it would be the following:
1. We don't want sexual harassers, predators, or philanderers in the office, since we hope that only the best of Americans would represent us in the Oval Office
2. We don't want a president beholden to corporate interests; we don't want a kleptocrat

I'm not saying those points are the most important things, but they just seem the least controversial.  A minimum, if you will.

So WHY did we end up with Bill Clinton (previously) and Donald Trump (now)????

[Miss Piggy]

Perhaps Dollar Slice will discuss the idea of a law that requires legislators to act in the best interest of their constituents.

I think any such law would be so big, so broad, so impractical to carry out that I can't support it. But thats not on me to support it, it is on the persn who is proposing it.

I would totally get on board with a law like that. In the financial world, it's called acting as a fiduciary (in the client's best interest). And the Department of Labor has issued a new rule, effective April, 2017 (unless/until it's halted by the new administration), that financial firms must act as fiduciaries for their clients' retirement accounts. So...if the government can require it from financial firms, I don't think it's asking too much to require if from themselves! (Pipe dreams...)

[iris lily]

Perhaps Dollar Slice will discuss the idea of a law that requires legislators to act in the best interest of their constituents.

I think any such law would be so big, so broad, so impractical to carry out that I can't support it. But thats not on me to support it, it is on the persn who is proposing it.

I would totally get on board with a law like that. In the financial world, it's called acting as a fiduciary (in the client's best interest). And the Department of Labor has issued a new rule, effective April, 2017 (unless/until it's halted by the new administration), that financial firms must act as fiduciaries for their clients' retirement accounts. So...if the government can require it from financial firms, I don't think it's asking too much to require if from themselves! (Pipe dreams...)

Great! Tell me about how that would work. When my senstor doesnt represent my interest but she says she is doing what is best for
America, , who,do you believe, me or her? Can I file action against her?

[Miss Piggy]

Perhaps Dollar Slice will discuss the idea of a law that requires legislators to act in the best interest of their constituents.

I think any such law would be so big, so broad, so impractical to carry out that I can't support it. But thats not on me to support it, it is on the persn who is proposing it.

I would totally get on board with a law like that. In the financial world, it's called acting as a fiduciary (in the client's best interest). And the Department of Labor has issued a new rule, effective April, 2017 (unless/until it's halted by the new administration), that financial firms must act as fiduciaries for their clients' retirement accounts. So...if the government can require it from financial firms, I don't think it's asking too much to require if from themselves! (Pipe dreams...)

Great! Tell me about how that would work. When my senstor doesnt represent my interest but she says she is doing what is best for
America, , who,do you believe, me or her? Can I file action against her?

Well, I would think it would start by defining a set of standards against which decisions would be evaluated. Do I know what those standards would be? No, but I would be happy to facilitate a working session with politicians across party lines as well as to brainstorm/discuss/select/prioritize ideas. Initial thoughts include who is benefitting--the politician himself/herself, the lobbyist organization, a small group of citizens, a larger group of citizens? If only a small group of citizens, then how could the politicians collectively come up with a better solution that benefits a larger group? Again...just a few initial thoughts off the top of my head.

[Shor]

Okay, I don't know where the right place for this is, so I'm going to put my rant here.

To continue my poop-sandwich metaphor (or simile, or whatever) from one of the other threads:  you know, I think that if there are few things that a huge non-controversial majority of people in America, red and blue, city or country, agree on, it would be the following:
1. We don't want sexual harassers, predators, or philanderers in the office, since we hope that only the best of Americans would represent us in the Oval Office
2. We don't want a president beholden to corporate interests; we don't want a kleptocrat

I'm not saying those points are the most important things, but they just seem the least controversial.  A minimum, if you will.

So WHY did we end up with Bill Clinton (previously) and Donald Trump (now)????

Simply, people are 100% willing to overlook most non-controversial aspects of a person and hone in on a specific thing they like or dislike.
Dislike Clinton's questionable political gaming? Voted Trump. "But doesn't he-" Doesn't matter.
Didn't think Obama enacted the promised changes that got you so riled up in 08 + 12? Voted Republican.
Fancy yourself a Republican minus the weird stuff? Voted Republican.

But at the end of it, we have the vote result, that's done. but then we do a bunch of hand-wavy "and this is why the results turned out this way". Which, if that sounds like a steaming pile of Market Headline BS, it is. Each person had their reasons for voting one way or another, but we can't be bothered to dig in to those specific reasons without it turning in to a spitting match over things that mostly have nothing to do with the actual performance / qualifications for the position.