Two words: Term Limits.
no sense belaboring the point ... we'll have to agreed to disagree ... we agree to some degree, except it's more than the "people" ... but I noticed that you are a Libertarian ... you wouldn't be suggesting the Pauls as alternatives, would you?
Well, what about those who may end up being good?Two words: Term Limits.
Although I really like Ron and have supported him in the past I dont know enough about Rand to put any support behind him.
Regardless, I still believe that Rand should be replaced when his term is up....as they all should.
I just dont agree. The rules of order are easy to follow. There would still be senior members of the Senate there because they only come up for election every 6 years, thats 3 elections.
And wisdom comes with life experience. How much life experience do you think these life-time politicians are experiencing inside the belt way?
I believe firing the incumbents and replacing them with new views, ideas, policies is a good thing.
I think that the lobbyists would have a more difficult time establishing new politicians pockets to sit in when the politicians keep changing.
What our Congress & President (not just the present administration either) are doing is purely partisan party charged bull squeeze, they are not doing what the people sent them there to do and that is to represent us.
If you are part of a company and dont do what you were hired to do...you get fired. Our government should be held to the same standards, after all they work for us.
Do you know why Obama and so many other candidates change their opinions, ideas and policies once they get elected? Because they get to see how the gov is really run and why they operate that way. Just like the reality of business, it's not a pollyannish world of flowers and peace beads.
You're not going to replace a whole system of gov over night, especially by just changing the guard and not rewriting some of the rules. It's a competitive world with nation against nation all struggling for a presence on the global stage of economics. Jimmy Carter was a nice guy but not a great Pres because of his lack of common sense.
i'm not a fan of either, but I think Ron got robbed during the primaries ... he was presented as a kook, yet he was the sanest guy on the stage ...
The journey of 1000 miles begins with a single step.
We have to start somewhere and it is a good place to start by replacing all of those who had a hand in screwing it up.
After we replace all those (and keep replacing them every election) we can work on fixing the broken system...we cant fix anything if those who helped screw it up are still there fighting you.
To answer your question on why Obama and so many other candidates change their stances once elected....its because they are willing to lie to you to get there all the while knowing you will never fire them.
We all had a hand in screwing it up by voting for the politician that promised the most. You'd have to start by firing the voters.
Do you know why politicians lie to get elected? Because nobody would vote for them if they told the truth about what could get done realistically. People don't want to hear the truth they want to hear lies.
I can see a candidate telling people that things are screwed up because we waste too much and need to make sacrifices.
Everyone lies. Everyone.politicians lie because...
Fun fact! The number of independents is on the rise. While many people do still utilize this kind of ideological adherence, a big slice of the electorate does not.stupid people will believe anything if you have the right party initial behind your name and will automatically believe whatever their party says.
Everyone lies. Everyone.
You lie, your mother lies, your father, your priest, your 2nd grade teacher, your doctor. And yes, politicians lie.
Also, politicians promise things they are not always capable of delivering. Electing novices would, I wager, vastly increase the number of missed electoral promises -- because the n00bs will not know the limits of their powers before they get into office.
Fun fact! The number of independents is on the rise. While many people do still utilize this kind of ideological adherence, a big slice of the electorate does not.
And again, it is not clear how electing novices fixes either of these issues. They still need to campaign, they still need to get elected, they're still going to say things that they can't accomplish.
Like many people out there I am sick and tired of our politicians doing things that are more beneficial to their (and their party's) chances of re-election rather than what the Constitution allows or common sense dictates.
The latest straw to be placed upon the camels back is the "extension" of Obamacare provision that mandates employers provide benefits or pay a fine. This provision has been delayed for 1 year...after the mid-term elections.
If this law is so important and, as the proponents claim, people are dying every day because they dont have health care coverage, wouldnt you think that the sooner they implement this law the sooner people will stop dying? (Sarcasm)
But apparently it isnt that important because all too many unions, companies & if the Immigration bill were to pass, all the newly legalized immigrants would all be immune to Obamacare. If it was such an important thing, why are the politicians buddies & large donors getting waivers? If they want to make all the illegals legal, shouldnt they also have to conform to our laws and not be immune to them?
Pandering for votes is all it is.
This upcoming election we need to get rid of these self important politicians who are more worried about themselves than they are doing the job they were elected to do in the first place.
If you are one of those who believe in your party (Rep or Dem) keep voting for them...but elect new blood, stop this same old same old B.S. by not re-electing the same old turds that have been soiling our capitol & W.H. for years.
They are the problem and the solution is to fire each and every one of them and elect real honest citizens to represent us. From the house to the Senate to the W.H. we need new blood. New blood that has not been corrupted by the business as usual mentality in Washington.
I'm sorry, but there really is no evidence of this. If a candidate doesn't have a track record, you have no idea how truthful they are, or will be.Yes, everyone lies but the trick is to pick the one who lies the least...lifelong politicians lie when their mouth is moving.
It's not about "liking the status quo." It's that electing a bunch of novices will not fix structural problems.You like the status quo...
1) Right back at you.dont bitch when those elected keep screwing you over....
I'm sorry, but there really is no evidence of this. If a candidate doesn't have a track record, you have no idea how truthful they are, or will be.Yes, everyone lies but the trick is to pick the one who lies the least...lifelong politicians lie when their mouth is moving.
It's not about "liking the status quo." It's that electing a bunch of novices will not fix structural problems.You like the status quo...
1) Right back at you.dont bitch when those elected keep screwing you over....
I'm sorry, but there really is no evidence of this. If a candidate doesn't have a track record, you have no idea how truthful they are, or will be.
And the ones in there have done such a bang up job doing just that huh?It's not about "liking the status quo." It's that electing a bunch of novices will not fix structural problems.
They have every right to spend whatever they wish to spend. Are you suggesting that we silence their speech?E.g. if SuperPACs can still spend massive sums, then electing novices won't fix that issue.
Again, they are really doing a bang up job doing that now aren't they? New blood just may make the necessary changes that need to be done. If they dont do it then we fire them and elect a new one to take their place The ones there now certainly aren't bending over backwards to change it....what makes you think that electing them again and again is going to change that?Or, if Senators are abusing the filibuster, electing new Senators won't fix that issue. The Senate still has to fix its own rules.
Voting districts are a state issue, they can choose to re-align districts as they wish.Or, if state governments are gerrymandering districts beyond all reason, electing new legislators won't fix that either.
1) Right back at you.
2) Believe it or not, the US is actually relatively clean. Spend a little time in China or Mexico, and you'll see what some real corruption looks like.
3) Again, electing novices will not fix corruption. What's needed is more oversight and transparency.
I suggest making a rational decision based on likely policy outcomes. rather than blindly assuming that someone with no record will have competence and integrity.If the incumbent has a crappy record vs. someone with no-record you suggest keeping the crappy one?
That doesn't change the fact that you cannot fix a structural issue by electing novices.And the ones in there have done such a bang up job doing just that huh?
I do believe that people should have the right to express political opinions during an election. However, I also think there is a strong public interest in not putting elected offices up for sale.They have every right to spend whatever they wish to spend. Are you suggesting that we silence their speech?
"New blood" has been tried, repeatedly. It hasn't worked.Again, they are really doing a bang up job doing that now aren't they? New blood just may make the necessary changes that need to be done.
Gerrymandering, by either party, is a ridiculous and harmful practice that ought to be stopped. Novices are not going to fix that problem.Voting districts are a state issue, they can choose to re-align districts as they wish.
No, my point is that corruption of any level is a problem, but it's also good to keep things in perspective.So by your logic, beings we arent as corrupt as others it's OK to be a little corrupt?
A bunch of the current Congress are pretty new. And they aren't fixing things to your satisfaction.We are not going to get oversight and transparency out of the group we got now...
I suggest making a rational decision based on likely policy outcomes. rather than blindly assuming that someone with no record will have competence and integrity.
That doesn't change the fact that you cannot fix a structural issue by electing novices.
I do believe that people should have the right to express political opinions during an election. However, I also think there is a strong public interest in not putting elected offices up for sale.
I gotta say, you crack me up. You're complaining about people being in the pockets of special interests, and you don't recognize how unfettered SuperPACs are a huge part of that problem?
"New blood" has been tried, repeatedly. It hasn't worked.
You are welcome to push for new candidates, but again, don't come crying to me when they fall right back into the exact same bad habits as their predecessors.
Gerrymandering, by either party, is a ridiculous and harmful practice that ought to be stopped. Novices are not going to fix that problem.
No, my point is that corruption of any level is a problem, but it's also good to keep things in perspective.
This bunch is not pretty new...1/3 of the House & maybe 6 or 8 in the Senate.....that still leaves 2/3 of the House and 40+ in the senate...and all it is doing is getting worse. It seems that once you get to Washington and start dealing with all the other crooked politicians who have been there too long, they suck your brain out and replace it with a party aligned brain.A bunch of the current Congress are pretty new. And they aren't fixing things to your satisfaction.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?