We need a grass-roots transformation of the electoral system, allowing non-rich people to run for office, but still limit it so that there aren't 1 million people running for the same job.
That's what I find really hard to figure out.
How to get someone on the ballot and in public consideration, that isn't rich and hasn't sold out his/her soul to raise millions/billions to fund a campaign...
When we can answer that question, then we can move on to our progressive ideas. We need to figure that one out first, because once Trump fails, we'll be back to the same thing.
Dear
RWS
1. Thank you for spelling things out in a clear list. The objection you listed, that the collective power should not be abused to impose or confuse the authority of different levels of government is just that: one of the goals is to prevent this as an objection. So all participants in each group agree NOT to abuse power to raise this objection, or if it starts to happen, the members agree to follow a,mediation process to point out the abuse (whether inside the group or petition an official outside that is doing this) and to resolve it by agreement. However it could be that to resolve the abuse, it could take a person intervening from one level or region coming in to talk to the person or group from a different section to work out a solution to whatever is causing them to overreach. So I agree we should all agree on the objectives and prevent the objections, but we may not agree on restrictions to prevent it. We can agree to focus on the issue or level we commit to, and to consult with those people first should an issue arise at that level and not bypass or issue statements without consensus among the group first. I get your idea, and just sense it would change a little by the time a group agrees how to frame it.
2. I do believe there should be some consultants who operate on all levels such as ministerial where all things are interconnected, but these should have no power to intervene except by consensus so that power is not abused. The mediators work by having zero say over the outcome and only serve to facilitate between the other parties. The arbitrators work by consensus of the people agreeing to them and to that process. These are basically acting as judges who only monitor if there is a conflict and whether it is resolved by consensus or it is being forced by compromise or coercion that won't last. But you are right the judges should not have power to impose their own solution, it has to come from the people directly involved in the conflict and not pressure not bullying by coercion or exclusion from outside. However in mediating or consulting to resolve a conflict between parties, these parties should be free to pick any mediator on the planet they agree to listen to, so if they request that help it should not be restricted or denied as long as they all agree to mediation and consensus not coercion.
3. The reasons mediation fails include raising objections but not committing to resolve them so it blocks consensus, time limits or legal restrictions such as speak freely or admitting wrong would trigger punishment and people cannot talk but compelled to take the fifth or not to disclose information that has implications from outside sources, and not asking or accessing help with a solution from other sources that could have helped them. If arbitration or mediation fails this is when I would recommend seeking help from outside to try to resolve the obstruction by consensual steps the parties agree to try next, not by coercion. The time limits are the worst pressures, and for the legal we might rely on a legal team to write agreements of immunity from prosecution as needed to resolve issues by consensus so this process isn't abused by either side to avoid addressing things but used to resolve the grievance and agree on solutions in full, not to obstruct justice but to protect the consensus process until the issues are settled to satisfaction of all directly affected.
4. Trump said he would take input from the public and put together ideas from that. I'd say let's contact Jill Stein and the Greens who practice consensus building as their meeting model, and they support representation by party, and ask her to lead the mediation that has zero power over the outcome. Let's state the goals and the objections.
The goals can be setting up 4-5 city states along the border to build campuses for workers to replace prisons and sweatshops as restitution for labor abuses by wrongdoers held responsible for costs, and to claim legal residency for dual citizenship for nationals from Mexico living undocumented in America so they have a safe agreed way to register by enrolling in work study programs through these school bases. These schools can be restitution for any complaints or abuses or fraud by Trump University and ask the students and workers across America to build campus programs the right way. Families or communities with mixed status or citizenship don't have to be divided if they have legal residence in these bases, and military prisons and teaching hospitals and factories can be developed along the border for security, and to provide jobs education and services legally, instead of just building a wall.
The goal of city states is to legalize the process of coming forward admitting violations of immigration labor criminal or trafficking laws and agreeing to a consensus process of assessing debts and damages and working out settlement and restitution plans. The workers and residents should have rights to ownership by investing their labor, and citizens who agree to donate or lend against debts owed by wrongdoers should get tax breaks while all costs should be covered by wrongdoers including interest or legal fees to work out settlement plans so there is no cost to taxpayers.
This WILL create tracks for interns and upstarts to learn to manage and lead got at all levels. The next Obama or Trump does NOT have to be a billionaire to work their way up this track from city to national to earn experience as Clinton did to seek higher office.
So this answers the issues brought up by Trump and Clintons backgrounds
And let's all ask the people on agreement to nominate Hillary Clinton to lead the nation in putting together these plans with all parties left out of representation, especially women and minority leaders and interests.
She can exercise power as President of this people's senate to put all the progressive ideas into action. Set up Model states along the border guarded by the military bases, and show,her leadership does unite if we back her. To assist Trump in managing and leading input from the people.
Www.earnedamnesty.org
www.rightsfortheworkers.org
www.ethics-commission.net
Note: where we need Cruz and Clintons help of legal expertise is applying RICO restitution laws for victims of trafficking to claim property as restitution. Whole prisons were abused to traffic labor, and jails abused to traffic women and LGBT youth on the streets. So this is the source of saving taxpayer resources and all this can be invested in rebuilding communities the workers can own and manage by pairing interns with mentors and giving tax breaks to investors to lend money until the debts and restitution are paid off by the wrongdoers responsible or by their donors or sponsors agreeing to help voluntarily.
The Green progressive Democrats want a cabinet level Peace Dept. I suggested expanding the Dept of Justice to Dept of Peace and Justice to offer mediation and consensus for Restorative Justice. Where complaints and solutions are reported to the Senate Judiciary committee. But the mediation process remains outside to be free of politics and pressure. If the people help Trump define this new position then Cruz could lead the men who have restitution to pay and invest and Clinton can work with Sanders and Stein to lead women and workers who are owed restitution in voicing and repressing their demands damages and debts.
