Unbreaking America: A NEW Short Film about Solving the Corruption Crisis

[crimsonaudio]

I'm ever the skeptic, but I really like these ideas. This video makes me hopeful.

 

[CharminTide]

Thanks for the video. I completely agree that, until we wrestle back control of politics from the 1%, the only interests that will ever be served are theirs.

This is essentially why Warren is my preferred candidate thus far. Folks here have criticized her for various reasons (DNA testing, "charisma," etc.), but I do think her ideas resonate with most of America if you're able to look outside the lens of partisanship. You (plural) may not agree with all her ideas, but she is the only one with a history of strong and successful consumer advocacy, and she is the only candidate with a platform based on fixing systemic corruption. Trump would never support anything in this video, and every other Dem seems to just pay lip service to anti-corruption. But it's clear this is the core issue that has driven her political career.

 

[Bazza]

Thanks for this, CA.

I'm also a bit cynical about any chance for things to improve regarding our political system. Mostly because indeed the foxes are guarding the hen house.

I've been saying for years there's way too much money involved in politics.

Meanwhile...I see folks arguing with each other over so many other things and at the end of the day....the beat goes on.

===========

How about this? The first presidential candidate that takes this movement to the American people as the main component of their platform wins.

Of course, that would involve some real big picture thinking - so the cynic in me says it will never happen.

Here's the link to this movement (taken from the video notes):

Find out how you can get involved at http://represent.us

Thanks again - I will share this and see what I can do....at least on my end.....

 

[CharminTide]

I'm also a bit cynical about any chance for things to improve regarding our political system. Mostly because indeed the foxes are guarding the hen house.

I've been saying for years there's way too much money involved in politics...

How about this? The first presidential candidate that takes this movement to the American people as the main component of their platform wins.

Of course, that would involve some real big picture thinking - so the cynic in me says it will never happen.

Literally the first item on her issues page:

https://elizabethwarren.com/issues/

 

[MattinBama]

Literally the first item on her issues page:

https://elizabethwarren.com/issues/

 

[MattinBama]

Apparently people are trying to demonize this group by claiming it is Soros funded. So since that complaint will likely make its way here eventually if this gets passed around enough I'll go ahead and post their response to some of the complaints from the YT comments section:

Just want to set the record straight on a few things:

1. We have never received any funding from George Soros.

2. "Full democracy" refers to the term used by the Economist Intelligence Unit. It's the term they use to grade the health of a democratic government globally. You can read the report here: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/25/us-is-no-longer-a-full-democracy-eiu-warns.html

3. The US is a constitutional republic and a representative democracy. Since most Americans do not refer to our government using the full qualifiers, it's widely accepted that democracy and republic are interchangeable.

4. Yes, we know some of you don't like Jennifer Lawrence, but would you even be here watching this video if not for her?

If at the end of the day, all you want to do is finger point about liberals vs conservatives, about imaginary George Soros funding, or argue about the terms democracy and republic, then maybe you aren't looking at the bigger picture. We've got big problems in this country that stem from a rigged system that screws over ALL of us, and it's going to take ALL of us working together to fix those problems.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Literally the first item on her issues page:

https://elizabethwarren.com/issues/

From the website:

Washington works great for the wealthy and the well-connected, but it isn’t working for anyone else. Companies and wealthy individuals spend billions every year to influence Congress and federal agencies to put their interests ahead of the public interest. This is deliberate, and we need to call this what it is—corruption, plain and simple. That’s why Elizabeth has proposed the most ambitious set of anti-corruption reforms since Watergate to fundamentally change the way Washington does business.

Thank you for posting the link. She is basically pointing at Washington/the government as being the problem and "how they do business". I don't see her saying the rich/wealthy are the problem. I see her saying the government is, which is exactly why me and several others on this board are completely against giving the government another red cent until the spending problem and under the table handshakes within Washington are fixed. While in contrast, there's a handful on here who constantly point to the rich/wealthy as being the problem and refuse to acknowledge government and their spending problem. And seemingly, for some reason, have this complete trust in government. When here we have a woman in Washington, who is a part of the government, basically telling us that the government is the one corrupt. LOL!

 

[crimsonaudio]

Apparently people are trying to demonize this group by claiming it is Soros funded. So since that complaint will likely make its way here eventually if this gets passed around enough I'll go ahead and post their response to some of the complaints from the YT comments section:

Heck, if George Soros wants to fund a movement that reduces government corruption, I'll stand beside him.

Since when is Soros the devil?

 

[92tide]

From the website:



Thank you for posting the link. She is basically pointing at Washington/the government as being the problem and "how they do business". I don't see her saying the rich/wealthy are the problem. I see her saying the government is, which is exactly why me and several others on this board are completely against giving the government another red cent until the spending problem and under the table handshakes within Washington are fixed. While in contrast, there's a handful on here who constantly point to the rich/wealthy as being the problem and refuse to acknowledge government and their spending problem. And seemingly, for some reason, have this complete trust in government. When here we have a women in Washington, who is a part of the government, basically telling us that the government is the one corrupt. LOL!

this sentence sort of gets at that

Companies and wealthy individuals spend billions every year to influence Congress and federal agencies to put their interests ahead of the public interest.

 

[92tide]

Heck, if George Soros wants to fund a movement that reduces government corruption, I'll stand beside him.

Since when is Soros the devil?

jan 20 2009 is when he first got his horns and bifurcated tail from what i can tell.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

this sentence sort of gets at that

Of course they do because the government allows them to. It's just like companies who take advantage of the tax laws that allow them to lower their income to such that they barely pay any taxes. If the tax law is going to allow me to do it, I'm going to do it. I, or any other individual or company would be absolutely foolish not to. The problem isn't the ones taking advantage of the tax laws, it's the government putting loopholes in place to allow it. Government has zero out here, the "devil made me do it" doesn't work. The government has full authority not to take money from these outside parties and have the choice to not let them influence their policies, laws and decisions. But they do. If the government would operate in a truly honest manner, the rich trying to bribe them would be irrelevant.


If I misunderstood your post just ignore the above. LOL!

 

[Bazza]

Literally the first item on her issues page:

https://elizabethwarren.com/issues/

Sorry......I didn't see a link to this movement:

https://represent.us/

There's nothing at all in her website about working through the local elections, as Jennifer Lawrence mentioned.

This is not apples to apples.

What the public sees is just another candidate "promising to do things".

I appreciate your passion Charmin hope you understand this difference in the two approaches.

 

[CharminTide]

Thank you for posting the link. She is basically pointing at Washington/the government as being the problem and "how they do business". I don't see her saying the rich/wealthy are the problem. I see her saying the government is, which is exactly why me and several others on this board are completely against giving the government another red cent until the spending problem and under the table handshakes within Washington are fixed. While in contrast, there's a handful on here who constantly point to the rich/wealthy as being the problem and refuse to acknowledge government and their spending problem. And seemingly, for some reason, have this complete trust in government. When here we have a woman in Washington, who is a part of the government, basically telling us that the government is the one corrupt. LOL!

She has bills and white papers if you want a deeper analysis.

But basically yes, and there's a lot of overlap that muddies the water. The politician/lobbyist revolving door is an example of both government dysfunction and political fealty to wealth and power, for instance. She's proposed a lifetime ban on lobbying for presidents, federal lawmakers, judges, and cabinet secretaries. It turns out that many federal lawmakers are also quite wealthy. She would strength conflict of interest laws and apply them more broadly -- why can a senator or cabinet secretary who owns personal stock in a company also make decisions that influence that stock? IMO they shoudn't. If you're interested, here's a rundown of her anti-corruption bill: LINK

Now, I'm not sure if anyone has specifically asked her about gerrymandering, ranked choice voting, automatic voter registration, or alternative means of election funding such as public funding or a voucher system. I think I know how she would answer, but I hope someone does ask if they haven't already.

 

[CharminTide]

There's nothing at all in her website about working through the local elections, as Jennifer Lawrence mentioned.

Uh sure, if you want to focus on that single item and ignore the overlap elsewhere both in policy and intent.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

She has bills and white papers if you want a deeper analysis.

But basically yes, and there's a lot of overlap that muddies the water. The politician/lobbyist revolving door is an example of both government dysfunction and political fealty to wealth and power, for instance. She's proposed a lifetime ban on lobbying for presidents, federal lawmakers, judges, and cabinet secretaries. It turns out that many federal lawmakers are also quite wealthy. She would strength conflict of interest laws and apply them more broadly -- why can a senator or cabinet secretary who owns personal stock in a company also make decisions that influence that stock? IMO they shoudn't. If you're interested, here's a rundown of her anti-corruption bill: LINK

Now, I'm not sure if anyone has specifically asked her about gerrymandering, ranked choice voting, automatic voter registration, or alternative means of election funding such as public funding or a voucher system. I think I know how she would answer, but I hope someone does ask if they haven't already.

Thank you for the above link. It's like I posted above and continue to beat into glue. The rich and their influence is simply a symptom of the problem, and the problem is the federal government allowing it and participating in it. Start with the federal government and "how they do business" and the rich and their influence goes away. But it doesn't work from the reverse. Thanks again for the link.

 

[CharminTide]

Thank you for the above link. It's like I posted above and continue to beat into glue. The rich and their influence is simply a symptom of the problem, and the problem is the federal government allowing it and participating in it. Start with the federal government and "how they do business" and the rich and their influence goes away. But it doesn't work from the reverse. Thanks again for the link.

At the risk of causing heads to explode, I don't think you, me, and Warren really disagree here. Huge wealth inequity has other social problems, but insofar as it relates to the manipulation of our representatives through money and influence, that's mostly a structural problem that can be fixed if we elect enough people with the will to actually do it.

 

[92tide]

Of course they do because the government allows them to. It's just like companies who take advantage of the tax laws that allow them to lower their income to such that they barely pay any taxes. If the tax law is going to allow me to do it, I'm going to do it. I, or any other individual or company would be absolutely foolish not to. The problem isn't the ones taking advantage of the tax laws, it's the government putting loopholes in place to allow it. Government has zero out here, the "devil made me do it" doesn't work. The government has full authority not to take money from these outside parties and have the choice to not let them influence their policies, laws and decisions. But they do. If the government would operate in a truly honest manner, the rich trying to bribe them would be irrelevant.


If I misunderstood your post just ignore the above. LOL!

it's sort of a chicken and egg issue i guess. i am hoping that sunshine acts as a disinfectant.

 

[Bazza]

Uh sure, if you want to focus on that single item and ignore the overlap elsewhere both in policy and intent.

OK....perhaps try thinking of it this way........

Who would the American people trust more......a career politician or Jennifer Lawrence?

In my opinion what brings strength to this movement is the fact that it originates from a non-politician.

I'm talking about Warren putting that video by JL on her home page (with her consent of course) and IN CONJUNCTION WITH Ms Lawrence putting together a campaign around it - then we're cooking with gas.

Again - appreciate your passion and think we are basically on the same page. With disagreement perhaps on campaign strategy(?)

 

[crimsonaudio]

At the risk of causing heads to explode, I don't think you, me, and Warren really disagree here. Huge wealth inequity has other social problems, but insofar as it relates to the manipulation of our representatives through money and influence, that's mostly a structural problem that can be fixed if we elect enough people with the will to actually do it.

Bingo - wealth inequality is only an issue because the political system is broken - fix the corruption and the disparity will begin to fix itself.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

At the risk of causing heads to explode, I don't think you, me, and Warren really disagree here. Huge wealth inequity has other social problems, *but insofar as it relates to the manipulation of our representatives through money and influence, that's mostly a structural problem that can be fixed if we elect enough people with the will to actually do it.

Oh no, I don't think we disagree.


*I've always said it, the reason seemingly good honest people who started out in politics wanting to make a difference end up being the "same old, same old" is because the system allows it. It's simply too much temptation. That same structure is also on the local level in many of the cities we live in. Mine is one of the worst regarding corruption. Heck, the entire state I live in is known for it's political corruption. But my city specifically is no different. It's just a bunch of people who cannot fight the temptation of using a governmental structure that allows corruption. It doesn't matter whether the city is run by democrats or republicans. It's all the same problem. It just looks different, but in the end it's the same result.