|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
73.236.194.50
...my biggest distrust is with "career politicians".
It is one thing to want to serve the public and perhaps attempt to achieve some sort of "change" (hopefully for the greater good).
It becomes totally different when your primary objective is to seek re-election to your 8th term in office, and you are beholden to donors/special interest groups. The interests of the public are no longer a major concern.
I am a strong proponent of term limits--not just for the office of president or governor--all levels of government. We should not have members of the House or Senate with "seniority" = power, just because they have been there for 40 years. They cannot be that "popular" in their home districts when a lot of the voters in their district weren't even born when they first took office, nor can they relate to the wants/needs of voters the age of their grandchildren/great-grandchildren.
Either move-up or move-on. If you want to seek election to a higher office after a couple terms--fine, and I realize that can turn into a bit of a career, but holding the same office for decades is BS IMO.
OK--rant over--comments?
"So I talk to the night, I head for the light, try and hold it on the road. Thank God for the man who put
the white lines on the highway"--a very dear friend for decades Michael Stanley (Gee)--RIP
Follow Ups:
Well the US GOP party is morally and ethically bankrupt. They are hypocrites and just plain almost across the board stupid.
On the day they are sworn in to office, President, Vice President, Senators, Representatives, and Supreme Court Justices; that would be 546 special prosecutors in sum. There should be a national university for training and certifying special prosecutors. Because we ought to keep a close eye on these scumbags and muckraking reporters can't do it alone.
"Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. "
― W.C. Fields
with people living longer too.
I'm all for age limitations if term limitations can't be set.
Is that discrimination? Sure, but we need to be discriminate for the sake
on the many and not only for the vested that get their way repeatedly.
Career politicians are and have been a danger to democracy on every level.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
U.S. us.
The only to fix it to allow all those eligible to vote to vote and, maybe, bring some civil mindedness to the process at the same time. Just voting to allow others to not be able to vote will not get us a democracy.
Term Limits would make the problem worse, as the Lobbyists would have even more power. The Old Lobbyists would remain and the 'Newbies' of Congress would be like Sheep to the slaughter.
The 'Newbies' would need a job soon after they left Congress, and the Lobbyists would be there to promise them a job (For a Price).
Most of the Problem in Congress is the Influence of Money. And Term Limits only exacerbates this.
The Term Limits idea is a Perfect Example of: "Every Complex Problem has a Simple Solution that won't work"
I live in Oregon where we actually tried term limits. We elected many no-nothings who got farmed by the lobbyists.
d
If the incumbent needs to be voted out, then let the voters vote that person out. The fact that the same (often horrible!) people keep getting re-elected is an indictment on the voters, not on the system!
Mitch McConnell has been a senator from Kentucky since 1985. He and his wife have become very wealthy while the state is a mess for the average person compared to other states. Look at the states ranking and think about what Mitch has voted for and against.
At least if they had voted some other bone head in they may have had a chance.
Kentucky Rankings
Health Care #44
Education #36
Economy #40
Infrastructure #18
Opportunity #20
*
Very good candidates tried to bring the state into the new century, but fell short. Bitch's power backing employed the best PR firms and bought boxcars full of advertising. In the end, the citizens chose to continue the cut-their-own-throat option.
The longer these geriatrics are in power, the less they do for their people, focusing instead on growing their power. The good news is that Bitch is 79. How much longer?
a
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
d
...in every election, we end-up with two choices--whoever each party puts in front of you on the ballot. You get the occasional independent, or in lower-tier elections, the "rogue" candidate that sticks it out, even without the official endorsement of the party, but in general, you get to pick one of the two.EDIT/ADDITION--and rarely does an incumbent not get the continued support of his/her party, or their hand-pick successor.
"So I talk to the night, I head for the light, try and hold it on the road. Thank God for the man who put
the white lines on the highway"--a very dear friend for decades Michael Stanley (Gee)--RIP
Edits: 05/28/21
Of course, I understand what you mean, but I still say the current system is more an indictment of voters themselves.
NT
"I am a strong proponent of term limits--not just for the office of president or governor--all levels of government. We should not have members of the House or Senate with "seniority" = power, just because they have been there for 40 years."
(And then go on to be President.) 100 percent agree.
We shouldn't even have to have the nomer "career politician".
But it was much easier for Congress to limit the term of the President than to limit their own terms. THAT's the sticky wicket. It will require the will of The People to do that, and, sadly, The People don't have much will these days (much to the delight of career politicians).
****
We are inclusive and diverse. But dissent will not be tolerated.
is what's needed. As long as lobbying has no oversight or limits, corruption will win the day. Plus, who raises the most usually wins: legislators at all levels spend their time from Day One fund-raising.But the problems of the US run deeper, don't they? How about the majority of one party that think the last election was "fixed?" Or don't believe who actually stormed the Capital, did?
It's hard to fix gullibility and stupidity.
Edits: 05/28/21
That the huge, deeply rooted strata of structures and substructures in place propping
up the traditional, established and current processes is so imperative to our economy
that to attempt to correct it would bring a financial collapse?
All the money sucked into the political system in various and myriad ways must make
Wall St. (for example) look like starts-ups, or upstarts, or...whatever.
Follow the money indeed.
"Once this was all Black Plasma and Imagination" -Michael McClure
...I agree, but what do you propose?
How about Election Day is Election Day--not Election Month, or whenever you feel like it. In-person with a valid ID. Should be a National Holiday, as well, so everyone has the opportunity to vote. If it is that important (which I think it is), you'll get off your lazy-ass and find/make time to go vote. Mail-in only for those with a valid medical excuse as to why they can't be there--like folks in the hospital or senior care facilities, or US military stationed abroad, and post-marked before or on Election Day--copy of valid ID required.
National standard for national elections--not this haphazard BS from state to state. I am not one of the "dissenters" of the results of the last election, but I see it as a total "train-wreck" in terms of consistency. I also think it is time for the Electoral College to go. Popular vote takes the election.
How about that for starters?
"So I talk to the night, I head for the light, try and hold it on the road. Thank God for the man who put
the white lines on the highway"--a very dear friend for decades Michael Stanley (Gee)--RIP
Election laws need to be nationalized. At least where the Presidential election is concerned. However, the Electoral college needs to stay in place so that ALL states have a say in who is President.
Electoral College empowers the minority to dictate to the overwhelming majority (five million more voted for Dems in '16). States still have sovereignty over themselves. The minority is heard in Congress, through seniority and other factors, i.e. equal numbers of Senators from each state, regardless of population.
CA. and NY would most likely elect the President of the United States. Currently the leadership in both of those states is for lack of a better description abysmal. You want THOSE voters to decide the fate of the land? NOT me and I live in CA.! Of course back in the day CA. used to be more evenly split Dem. vs. Rep..... THEN all the east coast liberal trash moved out here and ruined the place and I can say that as a 4th generation born and raised Californian...
saw with the last 2 Presidents who won electoral college, but lost popular vote.
NT
investigated election in our history, with many, many post-election studies--- and NO cases of any significance unearthed. NONE. ZERO. In a country this huge.Why are you fixated on this? Answer this, please. Why? What do you mean by "trainwreck of consistency?"
Eliminate Electoral College? Of course. That is an anomaly whose time has passed.
Campaign finance laws need to be completely changed to reduce funding, as much as is practicable: equal amount of airtime, for one. As it is, politicians have NO choice but to pander to those with the deepest pockets.
Citizen' United was a disaster for our country and drastically needs to be addressed. This editorial makes sense to me:
"The Watergate scandals of the early 1970s were followed by the landmark Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. The new law included three fundamental ideas: full disclosure to eliminate secret money in elections, contribution limits to prevent corrupting political donations and public financing to provide a new way to finance presidential campaigns.
These reforms worked well for more than two decades. But the presidential public financing system eventually broke down when the costs of presidential campaigns dramatically increased and Congress failed to modernize the system."
Edits: 05/28/21
You can say that, but that doesn't make it true.
There are good reasons why a person can't vote in person. But that doesn't justify sending ballots to all residents (not to be confused with CITIZENS).
In the multi-TRILLION dollar amount of money spend or proposed by this Administration and Congress, how much of it is for ensuring that only living American citizens can vote? How much? Surely, you have that number.
****
We are inclusive and diverse. But dissent will not be tolerated.
But when all the dust had settled after Election Day, recounts, audits, and litigation indicated there hadn't been massive voter fraud at all; instead, Trump's own Department of Homeland Security declared the 2020 election the most secure in history. And despite the polling, the massive uptick in mail-in voting doesn't appear to have been a major boost to Democrats; even where turnout increased, mail-in voting did not have a partisan slant. But if current trends hold and Republicans become more reliant on lower-propensity voters, for whom barriers to voting do have an effect, greater regulation on mail-in voting could actually wind up hurting the very Republicans who are proposing them in competitive districts.
ones studied by REPUBLICAN leaders and many points decided by Republican appointed judges. NO fraud found.
You sound like you're one of the people who believe this election was a fraud? If so, can you explain how down ballots were cast for Republicans; you do know y'all won many House seats, right?
How do you really know that there was no fraud? If IDs aren't needed and signatures aren't verified, how would you know? It's nearly impossible to determine fraud after the fact except possibly dead people voting.
Full mail balloting with ballot harvesting clearly has the potential for fraud and manipulation. Take Oregon and Washington. It's been reported that it has taken them nearly a decade to get their rolls and procedures in line. For states that did it for the first time, do you really think that there wasn't any possibly for errors?
Then, you have the counters. California typically rejects 1-1.5% of mail in ballots, most for being mailed late. However, for the Newsom recall, almost 20% of the signatures were rejected.
-Rod
We did mail-in due to Covid. Wife kept checking online to see if our ballots were counted. A few weeks went by and finally her ballot showed as counted. Mine never was counted.
d
It wasn't counted on the website where my wife's was counted. To tell the truth, I have no way of knowing what happened just like everyone else. I doubt that anyone knows for sure that their vote was counted.
d
nt
Nt
I do think the last presidential election received exceptional scrutiny and though there were no doubt screw ups and problems I don't believe anything remotely near the magnitude of result altering occurred.Having said all that, every vote should count and I'd sure understand if you're upset about your vote possibly not being tallied. I think no matter how voting is done - digitally, old fashioned machines like we have in my area, mail in ballots (which I used this time) - there will always be some problems that hopefully only affect such a miniscule % of votes that its inconsequential. It does give one pause though in light of some state/local elections that were determined by extremely small margins. They did have recounts however.
Edits: 05/28/21 05/28/21
Your link is to a conservative media outlet owned by a partisan Republican. If I linked to a progressive site owned by Soros that said the opposite would you accept the view expressed in that media as accurate and unbiased?
Its mind boggling that despite how blatantly obvious it was to all the judges who rejected the Republican lawsuits - including many Republican judges - some people still cling to the voter fraud bs and attempt to use it as justification for making voting more difficult.
Is there a single election resulting in a Republican victory that you objected to based on voter fraud? Did you post about voter fraud when Trump was elected? Did you express a desire to increase requirements for voting after Trump's election? C'mon Rod.
I didn't follow all the court cases, so I don't know the details. Surely there was fraud. Whether it was enough is another question. In general, mass mailing of mail ballots created far more potential for fraud.
Just look at the difference in Georgia ballot rejection rates. It's absolutely amazing how much better the rejection rate was compared to the past while you'd expect the rate to go up with mass mailing of ballots.
-Rod
There were states that stayed the same rejection-wise and some that contradicted the supposition, i.e. more mail-ins mean more rejections. The improved rejection rate in GA could have been as a result of the great, wide-spread efforts at voter registration and education.You do realize there was a recount, supervised by Republicans in GA, right? And that Republicans picked up seats in the House? And that this was the most observed election in history? And litigated, often with conservative appointed judges deciding the votes were authentically reported? And that voters with rejected votes are given another ballot?
You are going on wild assertions, kind of like folks who won't believe it was right-wing radicals that stormed the Capital.
Edits: 05/28/21
nt
...I technically need to present ID to buy liquor, cigarettes, and definitely a gun. Why is it SO difficult to produce ID to vote?
In the last election, upon review, over 350 dead people voted by mail--in my county alone? When I die, do my daughters get to continue to vote on my behalf? Didn't know you could will your voting rights to your heirs?
"Trainwreck"? Some states expanded mail-in voting. Some states did not. Some states counted votes received and/or postmarked after election day. Some states started counting before the election even occurred, others did not. Some states returned to paper ballots, some remained electronic (even though there were issues with some systems in previous elections).
National election--national standard--is that too difficult to understand? People from both sides are bitching about voting restrictions/requirements being imposed in various states/cities--a national standard should shut them all up.
"So I talk to the night, I head for the light, try and hold it on the road. Thank God for the man who put
the white lines on the highway"--a very dear friend for decades Michael Stanley (Gee)--RIP
I believe you have to show a photo ID to vote in person; the federal ID is another matter. If it's phased in so that the elderly and shut-ins can have time to comply, fine. Federalists usually deplore federal standards, so opposition could come from a party you'd not expect.
You do know that voter fraud is a fraud, right? See my response to Inmate.
These were your beloved mail-in ballots. Someone mailed-in a request for a ballot, and with a valid SSN, received a mail-in ballot. Someone filled it out and mailed it back, so it got counted. Even if a copy of a photo ID was required, most people still have a current valid ID when they die.
"So I talk to the night, I head for the light, try and hold it on the road. Thank God for the man who put
the white lines on the highway"--a very dear friend for decades Michael Stanley (Gee)--RIP
ballot is a problem, with, again, no corroborating evidence.
To get a mail-in (absentee) ballot in Ohio, you have to begin by providing your name, address, DOB, SSN#,and telephone #. I suppose a dead person may not show up on the checking system, though that would be rare. I think you'll agree the address fitting the other info would be a problem? Now, I suppose someone could go to the trouble of having a fake SSN#--- but hardly to vote? What exactly is the payoff for so much risk of serious legal ramifications?
Millions of people fraudulently did this???? And they did so, secretly. Not one broke ranks to tell of it.
Where is the science thinking here?
city/county/state offices? There's only the threat of fraud in presidential elections? Are you in favor of a national standard for Congressional elections, state legislature elections, mayoral elections?This is a bullshit red herring issue. There is no voting fraud of any consequence. Can you not see the ludicrousness of Republicans in Congress and state legislatures claiming a need to change rules to address fraud in every election but their own? Were they elected due to fraud? Do they want a recount for their own elections?
How the hell can you be for things like a national holiday for presidential elections and getting rid of the electoral college but not be in favor of making it as easy as possible for people to vote? Were the 60 bogus voter fraud cases brought to court by Republicans and dismissed by judges - many of whom were Republicans - not enough for you to understand its jive?
Edits: 05/28/21 05/28/21
I'd be glad to see a national standard for every election at every level, but most importantly national elections (including House and Senate seats).
It's not a matter of partisanship (to me), but every state is making up their own rules regarding accessibility to voting, voter registration, and voting requirements.
All these assumptions about me being a far-right republican--I've had enough. I vote for candidates and for/against specific issues/referendums with no particular loyalty to any party.
As I mentioned in another post, a national standard should/could stop both sides from bitching and whining about the voting laws/regulations in their specific area.
"So I talk to the night, I head for the light, try and hold it on the road. Thank God for the man who put
the white lines on the highway"--a very dear friend for decades Michael Stanley (Gee)--RIP
Can you site a single state with a legislature controlled by Dems that changed election laws after Trump's victory in 2016 to make it more difficult to vote or demanded more requirements to vote?
I would support a national standard that makes it as easy as possible for U.S. citizens to vote, certainly not harder - as Republicans want due to Trump's defeat.
d
"How about Election Day is Election Day--not Election Month, or whenever you feel like it. In-person with a valid ID. Should be a National Holiday, as well, so everyone has the opportunity to vote."
Then you would need to ensure that everyone is within 5 miles of a polling station so they have fair access. Also, to be fair, voting districts should have approximately equal numbers of voters so that geography doesn't influence vote counts.
...that also should be addressed. Defining voting precincts according to party lines/majorities is definitely an issue. Both sides do it at every opportunity. That's not to say it's fair or right, but it does go both ways.
"So I talk to the night, I head for the light, try and hold it on the road. Thank God for the man who put
the white lines on the highway"--a very dear friend for decades Michael Stanley (Gee)--RIP
I agree with dave. Public elected positions should have term limits.
I totally agree. Well said and spot on. That is the root of what is wrong with our political system.
.
Freak out...Far out...In out....
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: