Well you titled the thread "what's wrong with republicans?" but only talked about Trump.

Donald Trump doesn't represent Republicans, that's all I'm saying. Don't take it personally.

actually I talked about all three candidates, that showed up in the debate...

13 Year old Politician has proposal:

Limitation of Funding Act (LFA)

The LFA will limit a candidates ability to recieve funding from the billionaires. This law, if passed, will place a barrier of five hundred thousand dollars from any source. All candidates for any position in The United States Government will be subject to this law.

Edited 9/20/2015 21:54:31

Good all they have to do is use their corporation and it's subsidiary's to donate.

^ from any source

All of the subsidiaries can donate seperetly.

maybe fifty thousand dollars would be a better limit.

I think 5 dollars would be best, actually. They need to do some Wikimedia-style funding.

Edited 9/21/2015 00:22:35

Maybe just get rid of the rigged popularity contest entirely and replace it with a merit-based system in which the skilled, not the popular, manage our nation's economy. Amazing thought, isn't it? I'd also separate the jobs of commander of the armed forces/master of economics/ambassador; as it stands, the job of President has too many skillsets needed for any one person to be great at it.

According to scholarly consensus, the earliest example of an administrative meritocracy, based on civil service examinations, dates back to Ancient China.[24][25][26][27]a[›] The concept originates, at least by the sixth century BC, when it was advocated by the Chinese philosopher Confucius, who "invented the notion that those who govern should do so because of merit, not of inherited status. This sets in motion the creation of the imperial examinations and bureaucracies open only to those who passed tests."[28]

As the Qin and Han dynasties developed a meritocratic system in order to maintain power over a large, sprawling empire, it became necessary for the government to maintain a complex network of officials.[29] Prospective officials could come from a rural background and government positions were not restricted to the nobility. Rank was determined by merit, through the civil service examinations, and education became the key for social mobility.[29] After the fall of the Han Dynasty, the nine-rank system was established during the Three Kingdoms period.

According to the Princeton Encyclopedia on American History:[9]

One of the oldest examples of a merit-based civil service system existed in the imperial bureaucracy of China. Tracing back to 200 B.C., the Han Dynasty adopted Confucianism as the basis of its political philosophy and structure, which included the revolutionary idea of replacing nobility of blood with one of virtue and honesty, and thereby calling for administrative appointments to be based solely on merit. This system allowed anyone who passed an examination to become a government officer, a position that would bring wealth and honor to the whole family. In part due to Chinese influence, the first European civil service did not originate in Europe, but rather in India by the British-run East India Company... company managers hired and promoted employees based on competitive examinations in order to prevent corruption and favoritism.

Both Plato and Aristotle advocated meritocracy, Plato in his The Republic, arguing that the most wise should rule, and hence the rulers should be philosopher kings. See Estlund (2003) for a summary and discussion.

I would assume the people most experienced in their respective fields should get to decide: professors of economics and statistics for example, should have a much higher say in who is running our economy. Who cares what the average American thinks in regards to popularity? In that field-- economic management-- I want someone who knows what they are doing. I don't want a person with a good face who can argue on television.

Tyrion.

I speak with complete honesty here:


I really hope that you're young. If you're young, you might still have a chance at growing up and not being a piece of shit for the rest of your life. It's a long shot, but you can still make it and I wish you the best of luck.

No further comments necessary.

Eh, here's an idea that will force people in government to actually get their jobs done.

1)Reduce campaign spending(Max per candidate at about $100 mil), and limit campaign time(max 1 year)

2)if the gov't shuts down, gov't workers get paid, politicians do not(this is reverse of the current setup)

3)tie politician salaries to the economy(I dunno, 250% median pay?)

4)Make it very easy to vote(voter fraud is an extremely unlikely situation, you are more likely to get struck by lightning)

5)To reduce gerrymandering, create populous vote based seats(seats where a senator/rep gets it due to popular support) and make them equal to the regular seats

6)To reduce the power of the rural vote, make the senate population based, and replace states with senate districts

7) limit judge terms(to 8 years?) and no reelection or election campaigns.

8)To reduce the lack of congress getting anything done, require that congress accomplish at minimum what is necessary to keep the gov't running before going to recess.

How are in the Republicans even a serious political party in the USA?

Reddit like referendums on anything over internet or physical. Every day.

Politicians do their job well. Institutions limit their powers.

How are in the Republicans even a serious political party in the USA?

Because Democrats suck just as much and all other parties are ignored.

to answer thread basically most Republicans say they won't change anything. then they get elected.

but most Democrats look to the media see what people are complain about say they will change that. then they figure out that the way our government works it would take a long time to get it to happen and give up.

Edit: oh and i wish Independents and the other parties got more press. BC they probably are the better candidates then all of these other goofballs

Edited 9/21/2015 02:29:02

How are in the Republicans even a serious political party in the USA?

Because Democrats suck just as much and all other parties are ignored.

What you should be asking, is: Why does America have two opposing politic parties preaching 80% same things?

BC they wanna get elected.