It is currently Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:14 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: NON-PARTISAN political post
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 1:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:55 pm
Posts: 1564
SteelPro wrote:
If the term limits are sensible that would't be an issue. I agree 4 or 8 years is too short. But having people in Congress for 20+ is a problem. And honestly, I'm not sure if the number of years is the problem as much as the re-elections themselves. These congressmen make decisions not necessarily on what is in the best interest of all their constituents as much as what they can do to fire up their base for purpose of reelection. Two terms in the senate is 12 years. That is plenty long enough. And the way Senate seats are staggered in elections the turnover from term limits would not be so high as to have too much inexperience in office. For the House, lengthening terms to 4 years with a 2 term limit seems ok to me. But if you want to make it 3x4 for 12 years like the senate I would be ok with that too.


Speaking of elections, if you want to give the little guy a chance of actually winning one, the whole election process needs streamlined to help nullify the enormous advantages the already wealthy candidates have.

Eliminate candidate advertising, put them on televised, publicly sponsored debates, make a website where all the candidates public office records are easily available and compatible, complete with criminal backgrounds, tax returns (mandated), etc, etc. Basically, make as much information as publicly available, for free, give them an opportunity to showcare their debating skills, then leave it up to the voters.

The spending on campaigns has gotten completely out of control and eliminates the non-rich from contention right off the bat (or, worse, forces them to take the corporate hand outs to fund their campaign).

The added benefit is that a first term president then doesn't have to spend 6 months of his presidency campaigning for his second term. He/she can show up to the couple of pre-scheduled debates and the process takes care of the rest.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NON-PARTISAN political post
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:14 pm
Posts: 1213
Louis Lipps Service wrote:
SteelPro wrote:
If the term limits are sensible that would't be an issue. I agree 4 or 8 years is too short. But having people in Congress for 20+ is a problem. And honestly, I'm not sure if the number of years is the problem as much as the re-elections themselves. These congressmen make decisions not necessarily on what is in the best interest of all their constituents as much as what they can do to fire up their base for purpose of reelection. Two terms in the senate is 12 years. That is plenty long enough. And the way Senate seats are staggered in elections the turnover from term limits would not be so high as to have too much inexperience in office. For the House, lengthening terms to 4 years with a 2 term limit seems ok to me. But if you want to make it 3x4 for 12 years like the senate I would be ok with that too.


Speaking of elections, if you want to give the little guy a chance of actually winning one, the whole election process needs streamlined to help nullify the enormous advantages the already wealthy candidates have.

Eliminate candidate advertising, put them on televised, publicly sponsored debates, make a website where all the candidates public office records are easily available and compatible, complete with criminal backgrounds, tax returns (mandated), etc, etc. Basically, make as much information as publicly available, for free, give them an opportunity to showcare their debating skills, then leave it up to the voters.

The spending on campaigns has gotten completely out of control and eliminates the non-rich from contention right off the bat (or, worse, forces them to take the corporate hand outs to fund their campaign).

The added benefit is that a first term president then doesn't have to spend 6 months of his presidency campaigning for his second term. He/she can show up to the couple of pre-scheduled debates and the process takes care of the rest.


I don't disagree. The deck shouldn't be so stacked against 3rd party and independents either. The majority of the voters in country are actually in the middle/moderates. I believe independents even out number affiliated Democrats and Republicans. Yet the polar ends of two major parties are what steers the party's platforms and thus nearly all of Congress. And thus the reason we have so much partisanship and little ability or even desire by those in Congress to compromise on anything.

_________________
Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NON-PARTISAN political post
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:55 pm
Posts: 1564
SteelPro wrote:
Louis Lipps Service wrote:
SteelPro wrote:
If the term limits are sensible that would't be an issue. I agree 4 or 8 years is too short. But having people in Congress for 20+ is a problem. And honestly, I'm not sure if the number of years is the problem as much as the re-elections themselves. These congressmen make decisions not necessarily on what is in the best interest of all their constituents as much as what they can do to fire up their base for purpose of reelection. Two terms in the senate is 12 years. That is plenty long enough. And the way Senate seats are staggered in elections the turnover from term limits would not be so high as to have too much inexperience in office. For the House, lengthening terms to 4 years with a 2 term limit seems ok to me. But if you want to make it 3x4 for 12 years like the senate I would be ok with that too.


Speaking of elections, if you want to give the little guy a chance of actually winning one, the whole election process needs streamlined to help nullify the enormous advantages the already wealthy candidates have.

Eliminate candidate advertising, put them on televised, publicly sponsored debates, make a website where all the candidates public office records are easily available and compatible, complete with criminal backgrounds, tax returns (mandated), etc, etc. Basically, make as much information as publicly available, for free, give them an opportunity to showcare their debating skills, then leave it up to the voters.

The spending on campaigns has gotten completely out of control and eliminates the non-rich from contention right off the bat (or, worse, forces them to take the corporate hand outs to fund their campaign).

The added benefit is that a first term president then doesn't have to spend 6 months of his presidency campaigning for his second term. He/she can show up to the couple of pre-scheduled debates and the process takes care of the rest.


I don't disagree. The deck shouldn't be so stacked against 3rd party and independents either. The majority of the voters in country are actually in the middle/moderates. I believe independents even out number affiliated Democrats and Republicans. Yet the polar ends of two major parties are what steers the party's platforms and thus nearly all of Congress. And thus the reason we have so much partisanship and little ability or even desire by those in Congress to compromise on anything.


Absolutely agree on that, as well.

My skin honestly crawls when people identify themselves by their party affiliation (example, my cousin loves to preface his views with "Listen, I'm a bleeding heart liberal..."). That's usually a pretty good indication he/she doesn't like thinking outside their party lines and is going to be way too biased in their views to ever consider an idea brought up by someone from across the aisle, or read an article from a source with differing views.

I personally love reading articles from sources I disagree with. I think perspective is a fantastic thing, and in the current media climate, I think the best way to attempt to discern the truth from a situation is to read material from all ends of the spectrum and formulate your own opinion. You also learn to better pick out what's bullshit and what's more likely to be true.

But too many people go to Fox News or CNN in the morning and get spoon fed articles that are almost guaranteed to align with their views and gain nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NON-PARTISAN political post
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 2:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 6054
SteelPro wrote:
COR-TEN wrote:
Donnie Brasco wrote:
I'm down for term limits as well

Back to the salaries. My premise has always been: name me 1 Prez/Congressman/Senator that isn't ALREADY wealthy before they took this position.

They all come from money and they come TO DC for the added power and ego trip
Believe it or not, there are civil servants and elected officials that genuinely want to help governance and do positive things for society. Fame, fortune, and power isn't the only driving force to engage with government. Circumstance has a lot to do with why shit is shit, and the left and right have been artificially congealed into two entities that simply can't, or more accurately won't, mix or compromise.

But I know that means nothing to conservatives and the meme that ALL government officials are scamming the system in the "swamp" and that government is inherently bad. I'm guessing conservatives would do away with government altogether and just install a "leader" with more control than the other branches of government. Dick Cheney wanted to give the prez more power, overriding the constitution, because he felt Nixon was shafted. Add Rog Stone to that list.

If you had an effective manager that keeps the company running efficiently, why would you want to fire them?Corruption and complacency happens everywhere, not just government. But I agree there should be some kind of metric that can be used in terminating someones term and remove the fame fortune and power motivator from the equation. Term limits on the surface sound good, but it would effectively put the handbrake on government when inexperienced managers take their entire term just to figure out what the fuck is going on. Nothing would get done, and if it did, it would be without pause or prudence.


If the term limits are sensible that would't be an issue. I agree 4 or 8 years is too short. But having people in Congress for 20+ is a problem. And honestly, I'm not sure if the number of years is the problem as much as the re-elections themselves. These congressmen make decisions not necessarily on what is in the best interest of all their constituents as much as what they can do to fire up their base for purpose of reelection. Two terms in the senate is 12 years. That is plenty long enough. And the way Senate seats are staggered in elections the turnover from term limits would not be so high as to have too much inexperience in office. For the House, lengthening terms to 4 years with a 2 term limit seems ok to me. But if you want to make it 3x4 for 12 years like the senate I would be ok with that too.
I agree. But add gerrymandering to the list of corrections that need to be made.

_________________
"I wish Fraudlin would get testicular cancer and die after he watches me anally penetrate his wife."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NON-PARTISAN political post
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9247
swissvale72 wrote:
Anyone else disgusted by the unseemly video of the douchebags, both sides of the aisle, in Congress...toasting themselves for voting to open the government again?


I was way more annoyed with Tomlin's post-Jags-loss presser, where he toasted himself on great coaching and play calling.

_________________
Frank Sinatra, Jr. 'Black Night'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdwl7X6Jruo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NON-PARTISAN political post
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 3948
R S wrote:
Can you site some specific examples of "disaster" that's being created?



It’s an interesting question RS. And if people were really being honest with themselves much of that “disaster” is a result of how the media has portrayed things. And they began doing so the very moment they realized she lost and he had won. Their mission since has been to discredit and resist.

The real issue at hand however isn’t so much that Donald Trump was elected as much as an OUTSIDER was elected. Our government is supposed to be run for the people. It isn’t. It’s run for the benefit of government. They pretend to be looking out for he people but that is a fassade. They are really doing nothing more than justifying their own continued existence in office. And they’ll do whatever is needed no matter the cost to “we the people”.

While our government isn’t as corrupt as many nations around the world, it is in fact corrupt. It’s nit a swamp but a cesspool. On both sides. And it needs to get cleaned up.

That’s why there is massive resistance to Trump. He’s an outsider tut isn’t really a threat to the people of America, he’s a threat to the career leaches in DC.

Let’s define “disaster” shall we. And do so by looking at a some things that have occurred since Nov. 8, 2016.

The S&P 500 was up about 3-4% for the year come 11/8/2016. That is after starting the year with the worst January in record. Down close to 11%. It bounced back to the positive but dipped negative again for the year in June and then inches it’s way up to that 3-4% level. It was an election year and an extremely heated one. Everyone assumed she’d win. Many “experts” predicted that if somehow he won markets would see a deep and severe correction. Those fears began to materialize on election night. As he bagged electoral votes Dow & S&P futures plummeted. Once it became clear he was winning Dow futures dropped as much as 1,000 points if I recall correctly. People were crying in the streets and those “experts” were back overnight saying “told you so”.

But then what happened on November 9th? Markets were actually up that day. The futures markets were wrong. And what has continued to happen since?

The S&P 500 is up 31.41%. The Dow & Nasdaq are up just over 40%. International & emerging markets are up 30% to over 40% in some markets.

I think we can all agree that social security isn’t anywhere close to enough to provide a decent retirement. Making matters worse, the statistics show that a very large majority of Americans have grossly underfunded retirement accounts. THAT my friends is the real pending disaster.

And yet millions and millions of Americans as well as people around the world have just been given a huge boost to their retirement savings. The 50 year old with a couple kids in college, a mortgage, and say $100,000 in a 401k somewhere (not enough at that stage of life) all of a sudden has $130,000 depending on how they were invested. That is a real difference maker to that family. And MILLIONS of families everywhere.

But but but poor people don’t invest in the market. Nonsense. Yes they do. Especially I they are employed.

But what if the ones that don’t. What about those in low income and even minimum wage jobs that are likely living check to check? They might not even contribute to their plan at work because they feel they can’t afgird to. Reality is they can’t afford not to.

Anyways, companies are coming out in mass and helping these workers as a result of the corporate tax cuts. What Nancy Pelosi calls crumbs and “corporate welfare” some minimum wage worker calls it a raise, a bonus, and more paid time off if they have a child. Companies are easing the pay of their lowest paid workers and giving them bonuses. And sorry Nancy but a $1,000 bonus to a person making minimum wage at Wal-Mart isn’t “crumbs”. No, that bonus is likely bigger than their actual paycheck.

These companies are also increasing hiring. That means more people with jobs. And big companies like Apple that have been harboring billions of $$$ overseas to avoid what was previously the highest corporate tax rates in the world are now bringing that money back. Money that will flow into our economy and into people’s pockets.

Business’s are reinvesting in themselves and their employees. They have higher confidence to do so in this environment than the one we just came out of. Speaking of that. Most people recognize that economies have peaks and troughs. One constant is that an economy tends to have its highest growth coming out of a recession. The deeper the recession the stronger that initial growth.

That did not happen coming out of the deep 2008 recession. Economic rebound was one of weakest in history. And that is with the added benefit of massive fiscal stimulus. The stock market rebounded but actual economic activity was fairly anemic. Obama’s told us that 1% GDP was the new normal.

Ummm sure it is if we continue to pursue anti-growth policies and govern more towards identify politics rather than focusing on economic policies that benefit ALL AMERICANS.

People think Trump has done a horrible job. He should be removed. Are these people independlty wealthy or something? Do they not see what has happened as very very positive for the American people? Particularly the American tax payer?

Reality is that most people are far too emotional and a lot are just stupid.

Ya he can be abrasive. He’s not a polished career politician that only says things after seeing what the focus group stats say they should say.

And yet, sooooo many people would still to this day trade him for Hillary. After all, she said we’d be “stronger together” and he tweets things I dont like.

She didn’t have a plan to move this economy. And these results would not have taken place had she won. No matter how hard you try to convince yourself that it would have.

It would have been status quo. DC politicians getting richer while average Americans get the shaft.

If you turn on the evening news or CNN etc it is nothing but gloom.

Where is their coverage of why really was a historic first year from an accomplishment standpoint in terms of policy that immediately made Americans better off financially.

Isn’t that what everyone should want?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NON-PARTISAN political post
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 3948
And before you say it Swiss, yes that was looong... ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NON-PARTISAN political post
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:19 am
Posts: 9247
I wish you conservative folks would stop hammering the media. Unless you are talking about MSNBC, this all overwraught.

I tend liberal to independent ( I know hold your laughter).

I read the failing NYT.

I listen to NPR.

I watch pbs bewshour.

For the most part, it's all responsible fact based reporting with the occasional fuck up that is inevitable.

Liberal papers like the nyt are liberal be of the op-eds. Ignore the op-eds and I do not see the huge bias.

Trump is a fucking pig. But there is nothing incompatible with being a pig and being effective. There was a terribly lazy OP ed on the nyt this morning trying to argue that our acceptance of Trump's pig words and pig actions is leading us to moral failure. Which is utterly absurd. JFKs indiscretions are legendary. Somehow the executive branch survived. Yawn.

But really. Stop moaning about the news media. Unless you're composing about op-eds, It's so dumb. And dangerous for our political culture.

_________________
Frank Sinatra, Jr. 'Black Night'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdwl7X6Jruo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NON-PARTISAN political post
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:08 pm
Posts: 6054
Still Lit wrote:
. . . acceptance of Trump's pig words and pig actions is leading us to moral failure. Which is utterly absurd. JFKs indiscretions are legendary. Somehow the executive branch survived.
Different time. Completely different media. Technology and the dissemination of information not even on the same scale. Not to mention it was before the civil rights act, and the feminist movement.

Not comparable. At all.

_________________
"I wish Fraudlin would get testicular cancer and die after he watches me anally penetrate his wife."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: NON-PARTISAN political post
PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:12 pm
Posts: 3948
Lit, I came home from the office a couple weeks back and the CBS nightly news was on. I just left it one while I did some things around the house. As I listened, you’d think this economy was in a major depression and the country was on the verge of collapse. Nothing but “oh the horror of Trump” the entire or so it was on.

No coverage of an economy taking off like a rocket. No coverage of a market that has hit more record all-time highs (81) since the election than at any other point in history. No mention of companies paying bonuses to workers or wages being increased, etc etc.

Everything was negative negative negative. He reality is that the media can’t and won’t give any credit where due because it means (a) they were wrong and (b) it’s a win for Trump.

I understand your point though. I just think it’s worse than you realize.

And glad you mentioned JFK. He’s somewhat of a liberal icon & hero.

Go back and listen to his speeches on taxes and regulations. He is sooooo much closer to Donald J. Trump than he is today’s Democratic Party.

Matter of fact, if you quoted a speech of his word for word and told people it was Trump that said it they would tear it apart like all things Trump. Not even realizing they were the words of JFK.

RIP...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
FORUM RULES --- PRIVACY POLICY




Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group