I think the only path forward is two governments separated by county by county giving the people the

[Votto]

But that is the joy of socialism.

It can only work if everyone on the globe participates, so they will stop at nothing till we all think and do the same things cuz it's an idea so good it's mandantory.

People may want to spread socialism because they are true believers. Why would socialism not work unless all countries were socialist?

Some are true believers while others see it merely as a way to obtain power.

Take Hitler, for example. He had no particular love for socialism. For him, it was just a tool to obtain power.

For you see, Hitler fostered socialism because he feared an uprising like Germany had during WW1 due to the poor living standards during the war. To fix this, he centralized the system and all money went to either the military or the citizens of Germany. In fact, German citizens had a higher standard of living than did citizens in the Ally nations such as the UK and the US and definitely better than the USSR. Shrug, it worked. Hitler bought off a war weary populace steeped in genocide. It is a warning of future such buy offs that will more than likely go unnoticed.

Socialism has the added benefit of ending a free economy, something that tyrants simply love so they gravitate towards it.

 

[Peach]

I think the only path forward is two governments separated by county by county giving the people the choice on how to be governed.

My idea would be county by county as one county could vote to join the pro government society, while other could vote to be under an "government" that's based off of the articles of the confederation if they wish. Lets just say people would have the choice on whether they wanted to be governed by an government based on investment into education, infrastructure, clean air, water and food or whether they not.

I choose counties as states are too large an entity as most of rural America wouldn't accept it as they make up most of the land mass of our nation(probably 85% based on 2016 maps). What I am simply suggesting is two governments. We as an society are far too divided and it is clear that we don't have the same beliefs of government and we just think differently. Why should we be governed by people we hate and disagree with so strongly?

Maybe we could have one head of state and Commander & chief of the nation called the president with two prime ministers? The prime ministers would head the government of each of our "societies" and give the people of those areas what they want. Each society would maintain checks and balances within government, but could live based on the concepts that they believe. We'd probably be friends with the understanding that we're different but of the same country.

Again I don't think the concept of states is going to work as the majority of the land mass of our country is "red" but with low population. So what I am suggesting is letting the "blue" areas have it their way.

Or maybe we could just grow up, get over ourselves, stop insulting anyone who dares to disagree with us, and learn to live together like adults.
.

That would be nice but it will take time.

 

[Mac1958]

Or maybe we could just grow up, get over ourselves, stop insulting anyone who dares to disagree with us, and learn to live together like adults.

That would be nice but it will take time.

We're not even remotely close to starting.

The question is how much more damage is done in the meantime.
.

 

[alang1216]

So the answer to fixing Congress is to prevent people from lobbying Congress? Last I checked, those are voters as well and they are people and people do make up corporations believe it or not. I reckon you want all of society to be as powerless over those in Congress as the average man is now. Just think, no up start Trumps to ruin your elitist party in the federal government, wouldn't that be nice?

Lobbying is fine for everyone and everything: people, corporations, churches, charities, etc. They should just not be able to purchase Congress outright.

If you think either party wants to dry up their money source you are insane. The object is merely to attack the other sides money source while leaving their own the way it is.

I agree but if given the choice between public funding and no funding...

The issue is not the number of lobbyists in Washington. No, the issue is the centralized power. Just imagine if power returned to the states the way it was. Instead of only focusing on lobbying on a hand full of politicians in Washington DC while ignoring the rest of the country, you would have them have to lobby 50 state worth of politicians in their respective state Congresses. That would significantly water down the top heavy influence of corporations while not silencing their voices.

I think the results would be the exact opposite of what you suggest. Who is going to watch over these 50 governments? NY has the Times, a powerful watchdog but what does Wyoming have in the way of newspapers? One of the reasons Congress is so unpopular is because the national news media shins a light on it. Like sausage making, it is an ugly process but it would be even worse if it happened in the dark.

 

[alang1216]

Take Hitler, for example. He had no particular love for socialism. For him, it was just a tool to obtain power.

For you see, Hitler fostered socialism because he feared an uprising like Germany had during WW1 due to the poor living standards during the war. To fix this, he centralized the system and all money went to either the military or the citizens of Germany. In fact, German citizens had a higher standard of living than did citizens in the Ally nations such as the UK and the US and definitely better than the USSR. Shrug, it worked. Hitler bought off a war weary populace steeped in genocide. It is a warning of future such buy offs that will more than likely go unnoticed.

Socialism has the added benefit of ending a free economy, something that tyrants simply love so they gravitate towards it.

Hitler was not a socialist, he was an ultra-nationalist. He put Germany on a wartime footing which put limits on capitalism, just as it did in the US. It wasn't socialism that tyrants loved it was control and socialism is the exact opposite.

In the mid-1930s, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in western capitalistic countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s.

When Hitler came to power he attempted to dismantle trade unions and the shell that remained loyal to him; he supported the actions of leading industrialists, actions far removed from socialism which tends to want the opposite. Hitler used the fear of socialism and communism as a way of terrifying middle and upper-class Germans into supporting him.