How do we heal the political divisions in America?

Yeah, you got that right. Too bad the rest of the blind mice could figure that out, then we'd have them on the run.

 

So I assume you won't. Be voting Democrat next time atound/

 

No, I'm not denying that. That isn't even close to the point I was making.

 

By doing exactly what I posted on this board years ago: Removing politics and political parties from Government. Full Stop.

OP, just look at what took place after you made this thread. People began shooting at each other through the optics of their own Political Party and THAT's the problem.

I said a very long time ago that the concepts of politics and political parties have run their full course and needed to be replaced with a purely Management style of Government that removes the emotional component out of Government entirely. You cannot have a well run Government institution of such magnitude as this one with any degree of mechanical optimization harboring and coddling the level of emotional embedded personal influence in existence today.

The government should be a lean, well maintained, well organized, well structured Clearing House that handles nothing more than the routine and ordinary business of the country, which includes National Defense and Shared National Infrastructure. All of the pomp and circumstance assigned to the ritual traditions of the House, Senate and White House should be stripped and gutted from the Government permanently.

50 National Managers and 1 National President should be hired not elected by The People, through a National Interviewing Process that includes one vote per person in each state. The Unites States Supreme Court would consist of 9 National Judges who are hired by The People, not appointed by anyone, using the same National Interviewing Process apparatus. The concept of "Election" and "Appointment" is gone in this new system. We The People, make our own hiring decisions and our own firing decisions via National Interviewing and National Reviewing Processes. Your input is felt when you cast your tally for the final hiring decision. Members of We The People, are free to apply for the available positions. They can submit their curriculum vitae along with their application to the National Interviewing Committee which exists for the sole purpose of merely Managing the National Interviewing Process on behalf of We The People. However, We The People, are the only qualified entities capable of hiring new National Managers, the National President and all National Judges.

All Fiscal and Monetary policy along with all National Budget parameters would be brought to We The People, through the National Voting Process. This brings the decision making process directly to the doorstep of each individual member of We The People. If you fail to vote, then you have nothing to complain about. All current spending would be unveiled and brought to We The People, through a National Budget Symposium, whereby all members of We The People, would have direct access via the web to review current spending programs and to determine which programs receive future funding and in what amounts. Again, if you fail to participate, then you have no say in the final outcome. However, the information would be put before you. It would be up to you to decide whether or not you wanted to educate yourself sufficient to participate in the final National Vote.

I have talked about how our Intelligence Community and the Military would be handled during the transition to this new form of Government in the past, and I have given reasons why those Institutions MUST remain but must also undergo internal changes. Their loyalties would remain unchanged and always to the Will of We The People.

You will NEVER achieve "healing" in a Party/Politic framework embedded in Washington D.C.. That's a pipe dream at this point. The passions run too high. You must get emotion, personal agenda and corporate influence out of Government. There is only one way to accomplish this and that requires a reinvention of HOW we govern ourselves in a Pure Management Framework v1.0. There will be bugs and yes, we will have to work out those bugs along the way. So, Pure Management Framework 1.0, will at some point see 2.0, 3.0 and maybe even 4.0 until we nail down the Optimization.

This solves the problem. Any National Manager who fails to abide by the Will of We The People, through their National Vote Process, immediately places him or her self into a position of being FIRED, by the National Reviewing Process. Their firing would be voted on the same exact way their hiring was voted on, after We The People, had an opportunity to "Review" their conduct and/or behavior. A 30 day review process seems like enough time. It also gives the National Manager enough time to make their formal plea to We The People, for why they should not be fired. A very fair and out in the open process.

You want to heal this country? Get rid of Politics and Parties. Then build a New National Management System that is optimized to run efficiently, smoothly and without turbulent upset ever 2-4 years. Fail to do this and what is now a $21 Trillion national debt nightmare will ultimately lead to this country to default on all its national debt at some point in the not so distant future.

Do this and you get your country back. Fail to do this and you will have no one to blame but yourselves.

 

A very partisan reply. You doubled-down.

 

So you're saying Joe and morning Ho are lying?

PLEASE LETS NOT MAKE THIS ABOUT ME Your beef is with MSNBC and Morning Joe!

 

A good start would be to tell all the nit wits on the MSM to quit blathering their hatred 24/7!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

BINGO.

 

We can each choose to attempt to be part of the solution, or part of the problem. OBVIOUSLY you made your choice.

 

We need to move to end gerrymandering and take other action that causes congressmen to need to appeal to the issues of both parties. We need to reduce election spending, as dollars are votes and the secret ballots of the hugely wealthy have nothing to do with democracy.

It would be a serious improvement to allow more equal representation of individuals living in different states. Today, voters in Montana get far more recognition than voters in NY, CA, TX, FL and other states. Yet, the very fact of Montana's low population is proof they do not represent anything resembling an average of America in terms of the problems they face, the industry they have, their economy, or any other factor.

 

Fortunately for Obama he was one of the best and most skilled candidates who ever ran for office.

The birtherism thing didn't matter, nobody could have beaten Obama.

 

When you're making statements like you made your just as guilty so I am addressing a person responsible.

 

Thank you. All good comments in your post. I cut it off here because you touched on what I think is key and want to comment.

How about laws that make ALL news broadcasts toe the line of factual truth? Oh, there will be those who scream "freedom of speech!!!!!" Sure. But every amendment can have limitations applied says the S.C. and the 1st Amendment is no different. It has already been modified with limitations anyway. The networks have plenty of freedom of speech. If they want to provide a service of news broadcasts, require them to be honest and balanced. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine which, when eliminated, soon led to networks profiteering from news. Add changes or modifications to do a better job if it wasn't good enough in some instances. Require every partisan viewpoint to be countered by one from the other side. The networks will soon decrease the number of partisan viewpoints they broadcast.

If we "starve the public" of slanted, spun, biased views and lies and misrepresentations, they/we will have a shortage of biased positions to defend and of "talking points" with which to defend them. This would significantly decrease the opposing viewpoints and especially the lies. The problem will be finding a politician who would and can do it.

 

To allow you to draw that conclusion you had to ignore what immediately followed what you quoted, which was:

(I said it that way for a reason provided by the right. I didn't say "one for the right and one for the left" because in deference to the right, they normally refer to "MSM" as "liberal" and the enemy of sorts and they don't seem to see any "middle of the road" or balanced news sources to exist.)

 

You want the government to decide what factual truth is?

I don't think so.

 

Maybe you mean "candidacy" rather than "nomination". Bernie Sanders was a nominee but the DNC made sure Hillary won candidacy.

 

Start with the man in the mirror.

When one views the political spectrum as " one for the right and one for the rest of us " one is contributing to that divide.

 

Heal it? I've never felt so alive. I want it to blow up.

 

How did the Fairness Doctrine work/function? No decisions necessary. Where's your imagination?

 

Try reading the statement that immediately follows that one. YOU EVEN POSTED/QUOTED IT!

 

Your words and i was accurate.

One of the biggest problems with the left is their constant smug belief that they stand for the " people " they do not.

You divisive statement reflects that view.

 

The fairness doctrine would require fake news be given equal time on the air in order to provide a balanced portrayal of reality. Is that your idea?

 

Make less of the things that effect people's lives political decisions and allow them to be personal decisions. Then there's nothing to argue over.

 

Individual freedom would work, but you know that this is not going to happen without a fight, which goes right back to the OP saying that he sees no way for this to end on its own.