Jump to content

We've recently updated our software. Please report any issues you may experience.

vmax

Talking General Politics

Recommended Posts

I started following politics less than a year ago when I retired.....mainly because work and family left me with little time to keep up on it. like most citizens, I closed my eyes and trusted those who goven to do their jobs.

In the last year I have learned that many of the elected officials in Congress do not belong there. It's scary to have so many unqualified and disinterested people supposedly representing us. I seriously doubt their ability to draft legislation or even be able to read and understand it....if they read it at all.

So many are spineless chameleons. It's a shit show of shameless self promoting. Huge Ego Trips galore....and big businees owns and pulls the strings on so many. We are an Oligarcy disguised as a Democracy. Have been for well over a century. And...we just dodged the bullit on becoming an Autocracy. 

This goes for all parties.

Change needs to start at the grass roots level. We need to stop voting for the charasmatic person to represent us. Those who says all the right things, but has no experience or track record of actually doing the work. Since I was a boy, I heard politicians say the same things over and over.... " It's time for Change! I'm for better schools and education. We must stop the crime! Our streets and neighborhoods need to be safe. Elect me and we'll get this done!" They all campaign on the need for change. Learn to say that loudly with a charasmatic smile and you have good odds on being elected.

 Well....nothing has changed except for the fact that it's continues to get worse.

Where are the civic minded men and women of strong moral character and principle? 

Where are the representatives who actually see themselves, and go about their duties, as Servants for the People of the United States? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you have come to your senses.  The way I understand it the dems went to the dark side of pro oligarchy in the 70s when they decided we can get that no at too.  

At times we have had elected officials who work for voters.  Most of the time ike did.  Fdr did.  Teddy did.  Some in Congress have.  The enrichment from elected office thing is relatively new.  

What I want to see is the effective end of the electoral college. I want either a mechanism to allow a min of 5 parties to be relevant or my preference no parties at all.  I also want term limits in Congress and scotus.  I want age limits in all 3 branches.  I want money out of politics and biblically financed elections.  With these changes all the problems will be settled out on their own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, papasmurfbell said:

 

What I want to see is the effective end of the electoral college. I want either a mechanism to allow a min of 5 parties to be relevant or my preference no parties at all.  I also want term limits in Congress and scotus.  I want age limits in all 3 branches.  I want money out of politics and biblically financed elections.  With these changes all the problems will be settled out on their own.

If no electoral college, then what? Popular vote only?

I'm for term limits.

What age limits?

I definitely want the money out of politics. Money creates a conflict of interest....period. They are elected to serve the American people. Not their financial doners and backers. Currently it amounts to bribery no matter how it's cloaked. 

No parties is interesting. Candidates would actually have to state what they stand for. Elected officials would not be ham strung by having to go along party lines and voting blocks. They could vote their conscience on all issues. It would stop the games. It would stop knowingly being part of something that is inherently wrong like what the Republicans have been doing as a voting block. The Democrats are just as guilty of this. This dead lock power grab by political parties kills what is best for America....nothing gets done.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Def popular vote.  Prob 75 is the age limit.  If you are elected at say 73 you can fill out that term.  Past that you cannot be on the ballot.  An addendum to this is at a certain age like 70 some cognitive tests are begun.  If you fail you have to resign.  Diane Feinstein has some kind of dementia.  Now reporting has come out that she had it the last time she ran for office.  The hangers on kept quiet bc she is their meal ticket.

I would like to add another couple ideas.  The person running for office, their spouse, kids, siblings, and parents need to divest or put their holdings in a fully blind trust.  No more using your office to shoot contracts to yourself.  No more taking Intel from office and buying and selling stock that help you.  That is insider trading and justice should find them and throw them in prison.

No more revolving door from govt to industry.  You take being a senator and then go the npaa to use your contacts to get stuff for your new employer as an example.  Also no treasury sec to go back to Goldman. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting....yet it's logical. Some are there for ego, fame and fortune. Some are statesman and servants of the people.

Quote

Despite high approval ratingsor wide popularity, well-known members of Congress are not the most effective lawmakers, according to a report from the Center for Effective Lawmaking.

The center recently released its effectiveness scores for members of the 116th Congress, which ran from Jan. 3, 2019, to Jan. 3, 2021. The bottom line: The lawmakers often in the news — particularly from the House of Representatives — aren't generally the ones sponsoring bills that make significant headway through Congress or making substantial policy proposals. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is one exception. There are four lists of top 10 most effective lawmakers, one for each political party in each chamber of Congress. The topmost effective House member for each party was Reps. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., and Michael McCaul, R-Texas, topped the House lists, while Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., took the No. 1 spots in the Senate were the topmost effective senators in the chamber for their respective parties. 

“We’ve found initial patterns that those more effective tend to be what we would call the workhorses rather than the show horses, and because of their policy focus, they’re less likely to be called upon by the media,” said Craig Volden, the co-director of the Center for Effective Lawmaking.

“We’ve kind of relatedly found that those who are called on by the media, that there tends to be more of an interest in talking about ... politicking and personalities than there is in talking about policy and lawmaking.”....Most effective lawmakers in Congress aren't always its most seen (usatoday.com)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parties box out some of their own.  The progressives are.  Look how they took Katie Porter's committee seat after she skewered business leaders.  Then I look at what Beohner is saying in his book about  many in his caucus dont want to do any work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I try not to vote for ancient candidates I do not think there should be an age limit. I think that is ageism pure and simple. The parties and people should do a better job bringing in and supporting younger candidates but I don't think there needs to be a law. 

Kind of the same with term limits but I am closer to being in agreement with term limits. Not there yet, don't vote for them if they have been there long, but I understand the desire for some.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are chips that are owed so old legislators stick around to keep cashing them.  It is not like they bring a damned thing to the office now.  Diane Feinstein is #1 for that now.  In the past it was Strom Thurmon.  What does a 100 yr old senator bring to help the electorate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, papasmurfbell said:

There are chips that are owed so old legislators stick around to keep cashing them.  It is not like they bring a damned thing to the office now.  Diane Feinstein is #1 for that now.  In the past it was Strom Thurmon.  What does a 100 yr old senator bring to help the electorate?

I don't necessarily disagree, just not fully in favor of a law blocking people from voting for 100 year olds. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...