Letter to Bernie Sanders (and Trump) Supporters

[emilynghiem]

Dear Bernie Supporters: What will smoke the competition: if we can get the mobs of
Sanders supporters of business plan reforms to team up with Trump supporters who
want better job and business deals instead of politics as usual. we can write our own
JOINT RESOLUTIONS to ALL candidates and spell out what we want and don't want.
Where Left and Right disagree, we simply ask to SEPARATE BY PARTY and create JOBS
for ALL candidates running programs that way to serve us without fighting through govt.

Why not use the EXISTING party structures, from precinct level all the way to national,
to organize social govts and benefits that represent what the MEMBERS agree to through
our elected PARTY reps, platforms and paid donations that should go DIRECTLY into these
programs we are PROMISED. and QUIT paying billions for campaigns that siphon resources
away from reforming prisons and rebuilding communities to be self-sustaining and locally managed democratically.

WE the people need to unite, left and right, and tell our candidates and officials what
we want them to do as our govt if they want to get hired and keep their jobs -- NOT the other way!

As long as left and right remain divided and in fear of each other, the politicians can play the
third party middle man and play one side against the other while usurping all resources and authority.

If we agree to mediate conflicts, and SEPARATE funding where we disagree, then we control the
business plans that we agree to fund or not to fund. We can even demand Restitution and Reimbursement
for past abuses of tax money to pay for corrupt war and prison contracts instead of building hospitals and health care.

We can demand accounting of all debts charged to taxpayers and demand credits and issued
notes to reinvest those monies into rebuilding sustainable programs, not creating more debts and damages at our expense.

Let's give Sanders and Trump a list of what we want to get done.
And only Candidates who can work as a team, including all party interests in a cohesive umbrella plan,
will get hired to serve in office.

There is enough work to create jobs for all the candidates currently or dropped out of the race.
Who can create a business plan that uses all these leaders, their best skills, applied to shifting
failed govt programs back to the people and sectors who can better manage those resources
and serve the public on a sustainable basis, that all sides agree to, so there is no political obstruction.

See also Earned Amnesty
music video for Sustainable Campus converting sweatshop labor to workstudy jobs
ethics-commission.net

Emily Nghiem
Houston TX

 

[jwoodie]

The biggest obstacle is deciding at what level of government these issues should be addressed. If we could agree on a limited role for the federal government (e.g., defense, environment, immigration, etc.), your suggestion might work. Why can't we let the people in each state decide what they want?

 

[Arianrhod]

Actually the biggest obstacle is that Donnie does not play well with others.

 

[emilynghiem]

Actually the biggest obstacle is that Donnie does not play well with others.

I think there are ways to work with all personality types. If he wants to bark about hiring and firing people if they don't do X Y Z as written in the
plans and job descriptions HANDED TO THEM BY VOTERS, then he can be as dramatic as he needs to for effect. There is a time place
and purpose for everything, and we just need to optimize and apply particular methods and talents to the right objectives, and voila, we can get things done as a team.

I see it is disastrous the way Trump has been abusing his showmanship and oneupmanship to ride the publicity waves he is stirring up.

Why not harness and redirect that energy, that charismatic ability to instigate people to respond, to take action one way or another,
but invest it in organized ways to actually get productive work done.

We don't need a lot of wasted words and energy, we need to rebuild our relations economy and country on a solid foundation, starting with
the people and working all the way the levels of city state and federal govt.

Trump has enough vision to know what's going on now is NOT IT.
He can't see to explain what is going to work, as all that talk of a wall is symbolic but not the end solution in itself.
but he does know enough to rile people up and, similar to Obama, get people focused on change.
Unfortunately without support of the grassroots people and public, both Obama and Trump fail at the change that involves everyone to initiate.
it can't come from the top down but has to build from the grassroots up. It will take all of us.

Leaders like Obama and Trump can talk shop and spout the key catch phrases in the media.
But the work to really build and revamp our institutions and social programs is going to come from us, the working people
on the ground and in the trenches actually doing the work and providing the services, not talking heads in DC or on TV.

 

[emilynghiem]

The biggest obstacle is deciding at what level of government these issues should be addressed. If we could agree on a limited role for the federal government (e.g., defense, environment, immigration, etc.), your suggestion might work. Why can't we let the people in each state decide what they want?

Thank you, jwoodie.
Yes, the first step is to even agree these positions are all valid.
That some programs are better managed on a state and local level, and not federal.
Also few people like me even have faith or confidence that groups could be set up to manage their own health care, as the universal/singlepayer want, without relying on passing this through govt. Who said it has to be through federal govt. Many groups like Red Cross or Doctors Without Borders have national and even international programs all run by nonprofit, not by govt.


Since very few liberals/Democrats I meet rely on themselves for their own Constitutional enforcement, they tend to fall into the role of "unequal victim" and then petition to federal levels to defend their Constitutional rights
instead of enforcing these at the local level by agreement among individuals.
As much as my fellow libs and progressives decry and denounce "corporate politics"
they use that for political coercion by party. So it goes in a vicious cycle.

then sadly, as much as conservatives preach against depending on govt for rights and benefits,
they start playing the same political games, so where does it end? If only there could be AGREEMENT to separate social programs and benefits locally by party, in exchange for the business people offering to microlend resources and mentor their counterparts to build their own medical and health care systems and training service programs. Then they could do all the same work that needs to be done anyway, but under the free market system of business development and investment, not wrangled through govt. Just because something is set up in private doesn't mean it has to be profit driven; it can still be nonprofit in terms of serving the public, while structured and managed seriously like a business to prevent loss or waste of resources. Why not use the best of all these approaches?

It has to start locally. And yes, we do need to organize leaders and programs that
work best on the different respective levels -- some are better suited as the centralized umbrella group,
others are better for grassroots outreach that can be diversified and individualized (and not fight over how
to make "one central policy fit all members")

As more leaders take on different programs and angles that fit together,
more people will see we can have both -- both unity and diversity, both
the liberal agenda and the conservative principles -- without imposing conflict.

People need to see real life examples before this really sinks in how to make this work.
Again, if I could cast a "Political Reality" show starring Trump and Sanders, Carson and Clinton,
Palin and anyone else with a solution for health care, prison reform and the border/immigration,
I'd say grab a camera, let's film this and post it live. I'd like to see who can take our given
resources, leadership and division into parties, structures by state and by national organizations,
and piece business plans together to fix problems both inside and out, statewide and nationally,
domestic and internationally. Who can hang with whom, and who votes themselves off the show.

 

[emilynghiem]

test