How about straight up campaign finance reform. NO private money....
Last I checked we the people own the airwaves...Lets use them for more debates..
It is not about the debates. Those are scripted, negotiated, and planned to such a great detail that it is rare that we really learn about the substance of someone through them. The debates are important and I would really like to see some more of them if they were more free-flowing but they have been greatly controlled since Kennedy's makeup people trounced Nixon's lack of makeup people. It did not take them long to learn what is important in debates. And did it take a debate to figure out that Sarah didn't even know where Russia is? The handlers know their candidate's strengths and weaknesses. They will plan the campaign, from debate rules to interviews to speeches accordingly. Candidates get points from me if they are willing to answer some unplanned questions but I've seen corporate stockholder's meetings. Even the random questions from the audience are well scripted. I see no reason to think any differently about town hall meetings. The campaign signs in the front yard, the expensive billboards (billboards are not cheap. If you see a billboard, there is money behind that), the radio and TV commercials, the press releases, they all tell us something about the candidate, even the negative ads I hate so much have their value in learning about the morals and integrity of the candidate, not in the negative message in the ad but in how the candidate responds to negative ads about his opponent, whether from his campaign or from his "uncontrolled" supporters. I don't clutter my car with campaign stickers or put signs in my front yard, but I want to keep the constitutional right to voice my opinion if I want to.
No appointed positions, they seem to get around conflict of interest pretty easily.. We have way to many fox's in the hen houses.
Would you rather have someone there that does not know what a fox looks like or how dangerous they are. Do you want someone heading the Treasury Department that does not know the difference between a T-bill and a Savings Bond. Do you want someone heading the USDA that does not understand how many American jobs are due to exports of American foodstuffs? The different government departments are like huge corporations. It takes experience and skill to head up those departments. If he/she is a competent manager, the absolute top person does not have to have a tremendous amount of expertise in that field, though basic knowledge is a plus. They need to be able to manage. But the people that support the top person needs to have very detailed knowledge of what they are doing. In my opinion, it is not that there are too many foxes in the henhouse, there are too many "You're doing a good job, Brownie" people in the top positions. A good manager will pick competent people. An incompetent manager will not pick competent people. We Americans that bother to vote often do not do a good job of picking copetent people in the top positions. Of course, a few of us on this forum might have a little trouble agreeing on a definition of competent.
Editted because of that darn spelling.
It is not about the debates. Those are scripted, negotiated, and planned to such a great detail that it is rare that we really learn about the substance of someone through them. The debates are important and I would really like to see some more of them if they were more free-flowing but they have been greatly controlled since Kennedy's makeup people trounced Nixon's lack of makeup people. It did not take them long to learn what is important in debates. And did it take a debate to figure out that Sarah didn't even know where Russia is? The handlers know their candidate's strengths and weaknesses. They will plan the campaign, from debate rules to interviews to speeches accordingly. Candidates get points from me if they are willing to answer some unplanned questions but I've seen corporate stockholder's meetings. Even the random questions from the audience are well scripted. I see no reason to think any differently about town hall meetings. The campaign signs in the front yard, the expensive billboards (billboards are not cheap. If you see a billboard, there is money behind that), the radio and TV commercials, the press releases, they all tell us something about the candidate, even the negative ads I hate so much have their value in learning about the morals and integrity of the candidate, not in the negative message in the ad but in how the candidate responds to negative ads about his opponent, whether from his campaign or from his "uncontrolled" supporters. I don't clutter my car with campaign stickers or put signs in my front yard, but I want to keep the constitutional right to voice my opinion if I want to.
No appointed positions, they seem to get around conflict of interest pretty easily.. We have way to many fox's in the hen houses.
Would you rather have someone there that does not know what a fox looks like or how dangerous they are. Do you want someone heading the Treasury Department that does not know the difference between a T-bill and a Savings Bond. Do you want someone heading the USDA that does not understand how many American jobs are due to exports of American foodstuffs? The different government departments are like huge corporations. It takes experience and skill to head up those departments. If he/she is a competent manager, the absolute top person does not have to have a tremendous amount of expertise in that field, though basic knowledge is a plus. They need to be able to manage. But the people that support the top person needs to have very detailed knowledge of what they are doing. In my opinion, it is not that there are too many foxes in the henhouse, there are too many "You're doing a good job, Brownie" people in the top positions. A good manager will pick competent people. An incompetent manager will not pick competent people. We Americans that bother to vote often do not do a good job of picking copetent people in the top positions. Of course, a few of us on this forum might have a little trouble agreeing on a definition of competent.
Editted because of that darn spelling.
Last edited:
