I think "we the people" should be allotted a state of the union address

[Harpy Eagle]

I've already addressed that. They don't care. And no one gets to hear or read what I say to them.

then vote them out of office and find someone that does care

 

[there4eyeM]

Revolution is built into the Constitution. Every two years the entire House can be emptied.

 

[Marener]

I've already addressed that. They don't care. And no one gets to hear or read what I say to them.

What makes you think what you have to say is more important than what everyone else has to say?

 

[Independentthinker]

Politicians never really get to hear, or want to, what we have to say about what our state of the union looks like. So I say that once a month, with a full house and senate present, along with the supreme court, the POTUS and VP, an American gets 30 minutes to an hour to stand up in front of them and the nation, and tell them what's REALLY going on out here. Tell them what the economy really consist of. Tell them why they should stop funding gender studies in Pakistan, and hundreds of billions of our borrowed tax dollars on so many things that don't even pertain to 25% of Americans.

Politicians have their switch boards, email and social media links to tell them. But they don't pay any attention to that.

Also, they should be allowed to answer their politicians direct questions while they're on. And get a direct answer. Or call them out for dodging the question.

This is a great idea, but for the fact that we have 300 million people in the US, all with varying opinions on things. So, who would represent the people? Still, I like the fact that we have the president in power giving himself a ra, ra, rah speech and the opposing party gets a chance to rebut everything the president says, so we need someone representing the people to give a rebuttal that isn't partisanly political.

 

[YoursTruly]

This is a great idea, but for the fact that we have 300 million people in the US, all with varying opinions on things. So, who would represent the people? Still, I like the fact that we have the president in power giving himself a ra, ra, rah speech and the opposing party gets a chance to rebut everything the president says, so we need someone representing the people to give a rebuttal that isn't partisanly political.

The POTUS SoTU wouldn't change. They'd still have that. "The Peoples SoTU" would be in addition to that.

As in who would be speaking once a month....... I think it would be up to us to decide. Everyone that wants to, put their name in a hat and it's drawn at random. There's no doubt that there'd be some really ignorant people sometimes. But then again, there'd be some really good ones too.
Of course there'd have to be some detailed rules built in. I mean you can't let someone who's going to spend an hour complaining about his ex wife, or something that's not political.

I could fill up an hour slot discussing RINO's and how they're just like the democrats. Monetary policy, the Fed, the USD value, immigration and trade. Easily in an hour. I could spend an hour just talking about the RINO's from my state (in DC).

One thing I've always wanted to tell the world is for "Men and women of the military, just stop fighting for your government, just because opposing government officials can't come to an agreement." << The short version. So please don't throw in a bunch of caveats. I realize there's sometimes a need for war. But for example, if the NAZI military had refused to fight for Hitler, or if the US military had refused to fight against Iraq (and 1,000 other instances)........ The governments of the world would know they can't just use their military's as chess pieces.

 

[YoursTruly]

What makes you think what you have to say is more important than what everyone else has to say?

Because I'm an American. And my elected officials are supposed to represent me too as much, if not more so, than their favorite lobbyist.

 

[YoursTruly]

then vote them out of office and find someone that does care

If voting worked, they wouldn't let us do it.

 

[Marener]

Because I'm an American. And my elected officials are supposed to represent me too as much, if not more so, than their favorite lobbyist.

I'm an American too, and so are millions of other Americans. What makes your voice more important than everyone other American's voice?

 

[YoursTruly]

I'm an American too, and so are millions of other Americans. What makes your voice more important than everyone other American's voice?

Who said my voice was more important? Are you seriously trying to make this into a competition right now?

 

[Independentthinker]

The POTUS SoTU wouldn't change. They'd still have that. "The Peoples SoTU" would be in addition to that.

As in who would be speaking once a month....... I think it would be up to us to decide. Everyone that wants to, put their name in a hat and it's drawn at random. There's no doubt that there'd be some really ignorant people sometimes. But then again, there'd be some really good ones too.
Of course there'd have to be some detailed rules built in. I mean you can't let someone who's going to spend an hour complaining about his ex wife, or something that's not political.

I could fill up an hour slot discussing RINO's and how they're just like the democrats. Monetary policy, the Fed, the USD value, immigration and trade. Easily in an hour. I could spend an hour just talking about the RINO's from my state (in DC).

One thing I've always wanted to tell the world is for "Men and women of the military, just stop fighting for your government, just because opposing government officials can't come to an agreement." << The short version. So please don't throw in a bunch of caveats. I realize there's sometimes a need for war. But for example, if the NAZI military had refused to fight for Hitler, or if the US military had refused to fight against Iraq (and 1,000 other instances)........ The governments of the world would know they can't just use their military's as chess pieces.

Personally, I'd be OK with doing away with the speech. It hasn't been anything more than a self love fest for quite some time now. I quit watching them many, many moons ago. The pres gets up there and tells us how great things are, his party stands up and applauds, rinse and repeat several times, and then throw in a few "liar"s from the other side occasionally. I think the founding fathers were serious in the beginning of the president making a speech telling us the state of the union and somewhere along the line it just became a partisan tool used to tell everyone how great you are, no matter what was happening in the country.

 

[YoursTruly]

Personally, I'd be OK with doing away with the speech. It hasn't been anything more than a self love fest for quite some time now. I quit watching them many, many moons ago. The pres gets up there and tells us how great things are, his party stands and applauds, rinse and repeat several times, and then throw in a few "liar"s from the other side occasionally. I think the founding fathers were serious in the beginning of the president making a speech telling us the state of the union and somewhere along the line it just became a partisan tool used to tell everyone how great you are, no matter what was happening in the country.

Agreed.

We the people are so politically divided that those speeches are resonate into a means to either praise or bash. Too many only hear what they want to hear. And then they try to spin even that.

Biden: I'm going to end fossil fuels in the USA.
The right heard that, even knowing it's wasn't true, pretended as if it was. Even after oil production was at record highs. And so instead of saying it was a lie, they're still going with the "Biden is at war with oil." LMAO..

Things like this is what the R&D's want. To keep us divided. To keep voting them into office, so they can continue to keep up this big charade of how they oppose each other. The only ones really opposing each other, is us. And it's mostly from the lies the R & D's spew.

 

[Marener]

Who said my voice was more important? Are you seriously trying to make this into a competition right now?

You're demanding a platform, aren't you?

You don't seriously think that every American is going to be able to get the same exact platform. It's not feasible.

 

[YoursTruly]

You're demanding a platform, aren't you?

Not just for myself. But for every American.

You don't seriously think that every American is going to be able to get the same exact platform. It's not feasible.

No, not every American. Only one per month.

Seriously, did you not understand anything I posted in the OP? You're throwing out a LOT of BS caveats right now.

 

[Marener]

Not just for myself. But for every American.


No, not every American. Only one per month.

Seriously, did you not understand anything I posted in the OP? You're throwing out a LOT of BS caveats right now.

So not every American, one American per month, 12 Americans per year.

What makes those handful of people more important than everyone else?

 

[YoursTruly]

So not every American, one American per month, 12 Americans per year.

What makes those handful of people more important than everyone else?

Besides just making up stupid stuff to argue about, what are you getting at?