Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bill Pushes Term Limits

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Guess Who
    replied
    Never happen, members of Congress are only in session 120 days a year. WTF would they want to put term limits on such a great gig?

    Leave a comment:


  • peacepipe
    replied
    Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
    Yeah but they can prove they can't run it. Hilliary does not get high marks for her stay as SOS.

    her peace plan in Afghanistan fell apart. She made no headway in the Palestinian/Isreali conflict. She failed to keep embassies safe and Benghazi was the result. Our relationship with Russia at an all time low. The handling of Syria leaves a lot to be desired, it's a mess. Hell what did she do that screams to liberals she should be commander in friggin chief of the worlds biggest military?

    Quite frankly it's a scary thought.
    Like it or not, Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate out there. Hell she is the most qualified to run the last 50+ years.

    Leave a comment:


  • peacepipe
    replied
    Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
    Yeah but they can prove they can't run it. Hilliary does not get high marks for her stay as SOS.

    her peace plan in Afghanistan fell apart. She made no headway in the Palestinian/Isreali conflict. She failed to keep embassies safe and Benghazi was the result. Our relationship with Russia at an all time low. The handling of Syria leaves a lot to be desired, it's a mess. Hell what did she do that screams to liberals she should be commander in friggin chief of the worlds biggest military?

    Quite frankly it's a scary thought.
    That would be your opinion, but from what I've seen it's a minority opinion.

    Again if conspiracy theories are all the right has to attack her with, then you guys got nothing.

    Leave a comment:


  • cutthemdown
    replied
    Yeah but they can prove they can't run it. Hilliary does not get high marks for her stay as SOS.

    her peace plan in Afghanistan fell apart. She made no headway in the Palestinian/Isreali conflict. She failed to keep embassies safe and Benghazi was the result. Our relationship with Russia at an all time low. The handling of Syria leaves a lot to be desired, it's a mess. Hell what did she do that screams to liberals she should be commander in friggin chief of the worlds biggest military?

    Quite frankly it's a scary thought.

    Leave a comment:


  • peacepipe
    replied
    Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
    Who in there right mind would vote to limit how long your career can be? You will never get a majority. Dems and Repubs are in cahoots to keep power and until we realize that we will keep having choices like Hilliary Clinton/Insert cookie cutter conservative here type elections.

    Does anyone really believe Hilliary has proven she should be running foreign policy and be commander in chief of the military? Cmon how can even liberals believe that?
    No one has ever been able to prove that they can run foreign policy or be president prior to getting elected. Not Reagon,not GHWB, surely not GWB? Hell GWB proved he couldn't do it.
    If all you got is bogus scandals then you got nothing. I'd rather see a Bernie sanders type run for pres. But Hillary trumps anything conservatives can put up.

    Leave a comment:


  • cutthemdown
    replied
    Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
    Sometimes high achievers are crazy.

    Leave a comment:


  • cutthemdown
    replied
    Who in there right mind would vote to limit how long your career can be? You will never get a majority. Dems and Repubs are in cahoots to keep power and until we realize that we will keep having choices like Hilliary Clinton/Insert cookie cutter conservative here type elections.

    Does anyone really believe Hilliary has proven she should be running foreign policy and be commander in chief of the military? Cmon how can even liberals believe that?

    Leave a comment:


  • Rohirrim
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • houghtam
    replied
    Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
    Yeah but corporation give a lot to dems also. Unions never give to repubs. That is why you can't cut off one and leave the other.
    Wrong. The Fraternal Order of Police has endorsed a republican president every year in recent history except 1996 when they endorsed Clinton, and 2012 when they didn't endorse anyone.

    IAFF generally leans republican as well.

    Leave a comment:


  • cutthemdown
    replied
    Originally posted by peacepipe View Post
    The amt of money spent by unions is nothing In comparison to what is spent by corporations.
    Unions true influence derives from it's ability to get out the vote via as a voting block and more importantly it's ability to organize people to phone bank,knock on doors etc. volunteers for campaigns.

    Corporations don't have that kind of organizing ability, and as a result can't compete. It's why you saw such a strong push against unions after the 2008 elections and to this day.
    Yeah but corporation give a lot to dems also. Unions never give to repubs. That is why you can't cut off one and leave the other.

    Leave a comment:


  • peacepipe
    replied
    Originally posted by Irish Stout View Post
    Non-profits like the NFL? So many non-profits are complete jokes when their boards and CEOs are making millions.

    I think it would benefit us all if unions, non-profits, for-profits, and individual spending on candidates and acting politicians was absolutely disclosed and/or capped.
    I agree completely. All I'm saying is a unions influence isn't reliant on the money we spend.

    Leave a comment:


  • Irish Stout
    replied
    Originally posted by Breaker View Post
    I guess you are ok with Unions and non-profits not influencing things either huh?
    Non-profits like the NFL? So many non-profits are complete jokes when their boards and CEOs are making millions.

    I think it would benefit us all if unions, non-profits, for-profits, and individual spending on candidates and acting politicians was absolutely disclosed and/or capped.

    Leave a comment:


  • peacepipe
    replied
    The amt of money spent by unions is nothing In comparison to what is spent by corporations.
    Unions true influence derives from it's ability to get out the vote via as a voting block and more importantly it's ability to organize people to phone bank,knock on doors etc. volunteers for campaigns.

    Corporations don't have that kind of organizing ability, and as a result can't compete. It's why you saw such a strong push against unions after the 2008 elections and to this day.
    Last edited by peacepipe; 02-05-2014, 04:16 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • houghtam
    replied
    Originally posted by Breaker View Post
    I guess you are ok with Unions and non-profits not influencing things either huh?
    Absolutely.

    There should be very moderate caps with increasingly graduated amounts for each level of public office. In my perfect world, we would hire a non-partisan outside group to analyze the amount of money spent on elections pre- and post-Citizens United that makes a determination of how much each elected position can spend during a campaign.

    Just for sake of argument, for example (and I made these numbers ridiculously low on purpose): Representatives could spend up to $100,000 on their campaign, Senators $500,000, Presidents $1,000,000. Obviously they would have to scale it to districting and state populations.

    That would do a lot in leveling the playing field. Add in making the entire first week in November Election Week, enacting a law preventing exit polling to prevent news organizations and the like from calling races before the polls close to discourage people from voting, and I think things would look very different in Washington.

    Again, this is my perfect world solution. I realize it will never happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • Breaker
    replied
    Originally posted by houghtam View Post
    This. As I've said multiple times before, I would be for term limits as long as we can make it next to impossible for corporations and the monied aristocracy in this country (and others) to buy and rig elections.

    Since that won't happen because of the reasons you list as well as others, this is all kind of a moot point.
    I guess you are ok with Unions and non-profits not influencing things either huh?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X