Comment

Comment by Chris on December 29, 2012 at 9:08pm

I read a university study that said that elected representatives listen to rich constituents even if they don't contribute to their campaign because they might contribute in the future. What this does is establish a system that continues to help the wealthy and disenfranchise the middle-class and poor. They are unaccountable to the middle-class and poor. This is why average to poor income people have to pool their efforts through protests, letter writing campaigns and etc to have a voice that heard.

Comment by Davy on December 28, 2012 at 2:06pm

That's because they are unaccountable to the people!

Comment by Chris on December 26, 2012 at 9:32pm

In the U.S. federal politicians tend to represent corporate interests rather than peoples interests. That results in terrible laws and regulations. It seems to be getting worse.

Comment by Davy on December 26, 2012 at 3:51pm

I just been not thinking and this thought pop in to my mind.

Politicians demand that everyone who is a government official including the people in the services to be accountable for their actions. But they are unwilling to account for their actions when they pass laws or do other things in relation to their contract with the people!

Comment by Chris on October 4, 2012 at 4:19pm

Here's some information about the U.S. political 'debates.'

Moderate Debates and Debate Moderators
Debate process needs more scrutiny, not less

10/3/12

The Commission on Presidential Debates, which wrested control of the debates from the League of Women Voters in 1988, is a nonprofit--financed largely by corporations--that is basically controlled by the two major political parties. The campaigns hash out secret agreements about every aspect of the debates, and, as the group Open Debates has pointed out for years, the campaigns actually get to vet the moderators.

Being praised by "political strategists" could mean you're exceedingly fair--or that you've managed to offend no one in power. The latter is not exactly an admirable trait in a journalist. But it's the kind of thing that makes it likely that the major-party candidates will let you moderate their presidential debate.

FAIR's repeated studies of the NewsHour show that Lehrer's reputation for moderation is based on a tilt toward conservative sources and a willingness to exclude perspectives that might challenge the elite consensus (Media Advisory, 5/13/11). When FAIR studied two months of the NewsHour in 2010 (Extra!, 11/10), we found four times as many oil industry representatives talking about the BP oil spill as environmental experts; none of the segments on the Afghan War included a peace advocate.

Thankfully, there are some alternatives. Democracy Now! is presenting a debate special that will include real-time responses to the questions from candidates shut out by the debate commission: Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson of the Justice Party. There will also be a livestream special presented by OccupyTheDebates.org, offering analysis and commentary that will not be available in the corporate media.

Comment by Heather Spoonheim on October 4, 2012 at 10:32am

Great group!  My political vision is that we need to keep evolving our concept of government.  I believe we need to strike a balance between opportunities for capitalists, social mobility of the labourer, and social safety nets for those with capital and/or labour challenges.  :D

Comment by Davy on October 3, 2012 at 8:58am

Thank you Adriana.

I created it because there were no groups that you could specifically address political ideas and thoughts that you have. 

Comment by Adriana on October 3, 2012 at 8:54am

Great idea for a group, Davy!