Might I suggest that the last of the 4 bullet points about connecting dots be slightly modified to read, "Talk about how the system too frequently does what corporations want while failing to deliver what the people need." Having worked for corporate America for over 37 years I have seen all too clearly how often corporate leaders pressure our political system with claims of 'needs' (in a competitive economy) that are really desires to increase their own monopoly powers. My take on Senior Exec's is that they really don't like to have to compete - it takes too much imagination and too much work. They say they are eager to compete, but their real desires lie elsewhere. I'm not suggesting that we simply bash corporate leaders, we need them and we need their corporations to be successful in providing good, well paid jobs for more people. We do, however, need to rein in some of their so called demands, particularly when they are fundamentally about self enrichment rather than about improving the lives of our citizenry at large.
We don't really have to thank magas and/or ignorant/uninformed voters for this regime and its socialism for the rich.
We have to thank misogynists, racists and first and foremost women who are envious/jealous of any women who are in better positions than they are and who will NEVER vote for another woman.
I want to thank you all for gifting us with that thing in the White House, who is making life miserable for 99% of the population, but especially the lowest income 50%.
What "could be" versus "what is," you need to ask the question, what keeps the "what is" in place. Until "what is" becomes "what isn't," nothing will change.
A well-researched piece in the NYT earlier this year took a deep, structural look at part of our national governance and posited the idea of multi-member House districts. The essence of the idea is that by sidelining the winner-take-all nature of the two-party system, we instead might encourage a broader range of views that, by definition, would necessitate conversation between competing stances. Not for nothing, few people in our present system agree 100% with their parties’ stances, leaving room for the development of more parties and, hence, the need for, and structural requirement of, crafting political and legislative solutions that better reflect the will of the people.
In our present win/lose system, every citizen-voter on the short side of an election result is, in effect, unrepresented. A collaborative system rewards engagement, and benefits more fully our national community regardless our individual stance within the political spectrum.
Might I suggest that the last of the 4 bullet points about connecting dots be slightly modified to read, "Talk about how the system too frequently does what corporations want while failing to deliver what the people need." Having worked for corporate America for over 37 years I have seen all too clearly how often corporate leaders pressure our political system with claims of 'needs' (in a competitive economy) that are really desires to increase their own monopoly powers. My take on Senior Exec's is that they really don't like to have to compete - it takes too much imagination and too much work. They say they are eager to compete, but their real desires lie elsewhere. I'm not suggesting that we simply bash corporate leaders, we need them and we need their corporations to be successful in providing good, well paid jobs for more people. We do, however, need to rein in some of their so called demands, particularly when they are fundamentally about self enrichment rather than about improving the lives of our citizenry at large.
We don't really have to thank magas and/or ignorant/uninformed voters for this regime and its socialism for the rich.
We have to thank misogynists, racists and first and foremost women who are envious/jealous of any women who are in better positions than they are and who will NEVER vote for another woman.
I want to thank you all for gifting us with that thing in the White House, who is making life miserable for 99% of the population, but especially the lowest income 50%.
What "could be" versus "what is," you need to ask the question, what keeps the "what is" in place. Until "what is" becomes "what isn't," nothing will change.
A well-researched piece in the NYT earlier this year took a deep, structural look at part of our national governance and posited the idea of multi-member House districts. The essence of the idea is that by sidelining the winner-take-all nature of the two-party system, we instead might encourage a broader range of views that, by definition, would necessitate conversation between competing stances. Not for nothing, few people in our present system agree 100% with their parties’ stances, leaving room for the development of more parties and, hence, the need for, and structural requirement of, crafting political and legislative solutions that better reflect the will of the people.
In our present win/lose system, every citizen-voter on the short side of an election result is, in effect, unrepresented. A collaborative system rewards engagement, and benefits more fully our national community regardless our individual stance within the political spectrum.