RepresentUs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tb-av

Ok, well let's just pretend it's Hillary, Fauxahontas, AOC, Schulosi, Obama, etc.

Two points: One - those people are all politicians, most of whom have long histories that are easy to draw from. Very different than Jennifer Lawrence, who hasn't even been alive for as long as some of them have been in politics which means that it is very easy to know what to expect from all of them. Two - she is an actress, it is possible that they chose her purely because people know who she is. Also, while rare, people can change their minds, especially younger people. Finally, the video isn't making any claim that it isn't a liberal leaning organization, but that's also kind of the point of the video.

Now go back and listen to 8:35 - 8:40

"This isn't about these issues, this is about a winning political strategy"

It's interesting to note as well, right after she says that, she tells you how tings are going to be.... Then a guy walks in, he looks small because he is set in the background. "Can I do this part?" ... "No..." He walks away in shame. That scene was no accident.

You 100% can't know why that was included. Sure, could have been an indicator. Could have also just been a lame comical attempt. Honestly even if they wanted to do it the other way around, people would probably be crying that he's sexist for shooting her down, so they wouldn't be able to win.

the Left is very good at picking small fights, staying in the fight, winning at all cost with excellent media backing, then as she, it becomes a Federal sweep of their desires. That would be ok, if all their desires were just, moral, etc.. and all their actions fair.... but just look at Jussie Smollett <sp> . They sound good on the surface but are corrupt in their finality. Let's all have peace on earth. Sounds good, who wouldn't want that? ... Their solution? Throw all the weapons in the ocean and give away all our technology. Certainly the rest of the world would follow suit. Great idea, Horrible action.

---

I know that from your posts about VA, politically, I typically agree with you. But most of what you or several other people here have posted has not been any sort of intellectual argument. Can't really bash the left for it when we do the same exact thing. My point is that nothing is going to get fixed in congress without voters from both parties. If a Republican can't look past the fact that someone is a Democrat long enough to even hear what they have to say and then think critically about it, we're no better than they are. What I was hoping to get out of posting this was someone with actual knowledge about the organization. They claim to have made progress with over 800 programs/pieces of legislation/whatever. Someone with actual knowledge of how that stuff turned out is far more productive than people talking shit about the figurehead in one video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Korgs130

While I agree that we’re need to do something about the influence of big political donors in DC, I’m not sure their solution is the way to go.

Gerrymandering will never be impartial, no matter who draws the line. I’m especially leery of automatic voter registration and vote from home. Way too easy for non citizens to register to vote with “automatic registration” and “vote from home” sets the stage for vote harvesting. This is exactly what the left wants.

To start, IMHO, we need:

- Federal Term Limits: No more than 12 combined years of elected federal service (Any combination of House, Senate, President and Supreme Court)

- Voter ID w/ in person voting only (exceptions for those in the military and other federal service)

- Non Compete Clause: This is similar to one change proposed in the video, but it would require those that serve in elected positions to sign an agreement that would prevent them working for any lobbying forum or be involved in any lobbying efforts for a specified amount of time.

---

Yeah those are all good points. The at-home voting thing definitely seems to vulnerable to disruption, intentional by one party or even just for fun by someone. I don't know about the Supreme Court thing though, I don't have enough background info to draw on the founders' intent for that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 26 Inf

Here is my perspective:

Most of what they said was absolutely correct.

Most of our representatives are unduly influenced by whatever the 0.05% of Americans that contribute over $10,000 to their campaigns and their PAC's - regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans.

I mostly agree with the numbers that they presented reference how folks describe themselves - 25% Liberal, 34% Moderate, 36% Conservative - although I think some of the self-described Liberals and Conservatives are actually moderates.

I also don't think you can probably find much fault with any of the studies they used such as the likelihood of public support resulting in passage of a law, etc.

Bottom line for me is, most of us don't trust each other and we are too dependent on the examples of outliers in forming our opinions. Here are some examples:

1) Do you really think even 30% of Americans support open borders and unlimited immigration? I don't.
2) Do you really think over 30% of Americans want third trimester abortions to be available on demand? I don't.
3) Do you really think over 30% of Americans are satisfied with the healthcare system as it is? I don't.
4) Do you really think that a majority of Americans believe that banning 'assault rifles' will significantly impact mass murders? I don't.
5) Do you really think that a majority of Americans believe that firearms should be outlawed? I don't.

Basically, it boils down to: 1) how much you trust your fellow Americans; 2) whether you think shit is broke; and 3) whether you are only willing to act based on how much the broken system impacts you, or whether you are willing to act for the good of all.

JMO

---

What was that someone mentioned about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions? Also, who gets to decide what is "good for all"?

I'd fail in your #1 point: I do NOT trust my fellow Americans.

While I do not necessarily disagree with term limits, remember she is hating on the people YOU elected. "They" never seem to have disdain for their own voting choices, just yours. That's exactly why, when I see polls showing disgust with Congress, it's because everyone thinks everyone else's Rep/Senator is the problem. It is going to be an inherent thing when you have elections, there is no way around it. I can't stand Pelosi, Schumer, Gillibrand, AOC, or any of the other Lefties and think even less of the dolts that elected them; however, that cuts both ways.

Folks, we ain't gonna sing Kumbaya, so face it and get over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ABNAK

What was that someone mentioned about the road to Hell being paved with good intentions? Also, who gets to decide what is "good for all"?

I'd fail in your #1 point: I do NOT trust my fellow Americans.

---

Let me flesh out what I meant by this: whether you are only willing to act based on how much the broken system impacts you, or whether you are willing to act for the good of all.

It seems to me that there are folks all willing to put up with corruption and suck just as long as they can get their 3rd trimester abortion. Just like there are folks willing to put up with corruption and suck just as long as they get their 30 round mags and AR's.

In other words, their attitude is 'Fvck you buddy, I got mine.' I've never thought folks like that added much to the human experience.

As far as trusting your fellow Americans, when push comes to shove, most will stand for their Nation. Some folks, I would say you and I included, served because we thought we should, but the folks I'm talking about will stand up just as their forefathers did during WWII.

I don't recall what you do for a living, but I've experienced over and over that most people are decent enough if given the chance. I've had pretty sketchy looking folks get elbow deep in blood with me at accident scenes 'what do you need me to do?' and I've seen our community mobilize in time of need with all social, ethnic and religious groups turning to solving the task at hand.

Yep, there are assholes, but too many make the mistake of believing they are the majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 26 Inf

Let me flesh out what I meant by this: whether you are only willing to act based on how much the broken system impacts you, or whether you are willing to act for the good of all.

It seems to me that there are folks all willing to put up with corruption and suck just as long as they can get their 3rd trimester abortion. Just like there are folks willing to put up with corruption and suck just as long as they get their 30 round mags and AR's.

In other words, their attitude is 'Fvck you buddy, I got mine.' I've never thought folks like that added much to the human experience.

As far as trusting your fellow Americans, when push comes to shove, most will stand for their Nation. Some folks, I would say you and I included, served because we thought we should, but the folks I'm talking about will stand up just as their forefathers did during WWII.

I don't recall what you do for a living, but I've experienced over and over that most people are decent enough if given the chance. I've had pretty sketchy looking folks get elbow deep in blood with me at accident scenes 'what do you need me to do?' and I've seen our community mobilize in time of need with all social, ethnic and religious groups turning to solving the task at hand.

Yep, there are assholes, but too many make the mistake of believing they are the majority.

---

If there was a car on fire and I was trying to break out a window to pull someone out, anyone who lent a hand would be welcomed. It wouldn't matter if I later found out they were a flaming libtard or not. So yeah, in "tight" situations people tend to rise above partisan issues, at least temporarily.

You have to look at what comprises the majority of time: is it those few crucial moments when two strangers from opposite ends of the political spectrum cooperate and save someone from that burning car, or is it the 99% of the rest of their lives that matters in the way we interact? I say that there will always be a "step-up", if you will, by people regardless of their affiliations or beliefs, and that is human nature (and definitely a good thing). But will that override the other 99% of their lives? It would be nice to say it would, but in reality it doesn't matter. While I would welcome help from another in a critical situation, we probably still won't see eye to eye on other issues. They still wouldn't like my politics, nor I theirs.

However, in those critical situations we speak of it is indeed nice to know that, at least for the moment, we will work together as humans to save a life. Character and integrity both cross partisan lines, but we eventually revert to form.

Actors @$%^&()_++U^%$## Who gives a shit what they are told to think .