|
Post by ocmmafan on May 17, 2017 15:07:12 GMT -5
This is the most exciting political issue underway and hopefully doesn't lose steam. THIS is the kind of issue reporters should be asking the President about and talking about because how will any congressmen or senator publicly say they are against this? No one will feel sorry for them or agree they need to be in office forever. Trump is for this as part of his "drain the swamp" rhetoric so let's fucking hear about it. www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=29403 two year terms for congressmen 2 three year terms for senators You get 6 years and that's it. Period. Anyone see any downside to this?
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on May 17, 2017 16:22:28 GMT -5
Anyone see any downside to this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 17:04:08 GMT -5
None. And if Cruz actually gets this through, I'd applaud the penguin lookin guy.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on May 17, 2017 17:04:18 GMT -5
Downside would be two-fold:
1. the rare gem like a Rand Paul would be long gone before he was able to form any alliances or produce any change in Mordor. 2. the deep state, agencies, and courts become the dominant driving forces in governance and these reformers we vote in will simply be obstructed and waited out. Six years ain't shit if you're a court or an investigative agency dragging ass.
The upsides, however, are fucking astronomic.
Imagine a politician proposing a measure that would effectively end his own career and limit his own ambitions? You won't see that shit with a (D) next to it. Bank on it. And 90% of the (R)s won't support this, either.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on May 17, 2017 17:11:36 GMT -5
Downside would be two-fold: 1. the rare gem like a Rand Paul would be long gone before he was able to form any alliances or produce any change in Mordor. 2. the deep state, agencies, and courts become the dominant driving forces in governance. The upsides, however, are fucking astronomic. Imagine a politician proposing a measure that would effectively end his own career and limit his own ambitions? You won't see that shit with a (D) next to it. Bank on it. And 90% of the (R)s won't support this, either. #2 was summed up by my picture. The seats become almost entirely pay to play. There needs to be limits on financial involvements, and political consulting succeeding your term in office.
|
|
|
Post by boboplata on May 17, 2017 20:38:04 GMT -5
Downside would be two-fold: 1. the rare gem like a Rand Paul would be long gone before he was able to form any alliances or produce any change in Mordor. 2. the deep state, agencies, and courts become the dominant driving forces in governance and these reformers we vote in will simply be obstructed and waited out. Six years ain't shit if you're a court or an investigative agency dragging ass. The upsides, however, are fucking astronomic. Imagine a politician proposing a measure that would effectively end his own career and limit his own ambitions? You won't see that shit with a (D) next to it. Bank on it. And 90% of the (R)s won't support this, either. Noob politicians getting propped up by their parties are too busy trying to spread influences or curry favors instead of doing their job serving their constituents. They're trying to look for longevity in their careers as they equate it to their legacy. A limited term would make them do their job properly.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on May 17, 2017 21:09:36 GMT -5
Downside would be two-fold: 1. the rare gem like a Rand Paul would be long gone before he was able to form any alliances or produce any change in Mordor. 2. the deep state, agencies, and courts become the dominant driving forces in governance and these reformers we vote in will simply be obstructed and waited out. Six years ain't shit if you're a court or an investigative agency dragging ass. The upsides, however, are fucking astronomic. Imagine a politician proposing a measure that would effectively end his own career and limit his own ambitions? You won't see that shit with a (D) next to it. Bank on it. And 90% of the (R)s won't support this, either. Noob politicians getting propped up by their parties are too busy trying to spread influences or curry favors instead of doing their job serving their constituents. They're trying to look for longevity in their careers as they equate it to their legacy. A limited term would make them do their job properly. And the downside is we go from a group of the rich and powerful competing to play puppeteer over the person in the seat, to likely a a person or two (or even a state/regional company) controlling who is gonna get the seat. Term limits mean fuck-all until there are laws in place that fight the built in corruption that comes with elected office.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 11:49:00 GMT -5
Hell, I'd leave a Senate seat at 6 years but just one term. I'm tired of politicians spending 75% of the term campaigning for re-election.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on May 19, 2017 6:04:56 GMT -5
Downside would be two-fold: 1. the rare gem like a Rand Paul would be long gone before he was able to form any alliances or produce any change in Mordor. 2. the deep state, agencies, and courts become the dominant driving forces in governance and these reformers we vote in will simply be obstructed and waited out. Six years ain't shit if you're a court or an investigative agency dragging ass. The upsides, however, are fucking astronomic. Imagine a politician proposing a measure that would effectively end his own career and limit his own ambitions? You won't see that shit with a (D) next to it. Bank on it. And 90% of the (R)s won't support this, either. I would rather simply pay all lawmakers two million dollars a year, but subject them to such strict anti corruption standards that 99% of current lawmakers would be in prison. It would probably be the biggest single money saver in history. As it stands, every lawmaker becomes a multi millionaire very quickly after assuming office, but to do so they have to spread around a hundred million tax dollars just to get that cut. Standards of proof would be minimal: if you were a congressman, and ten years later you find yourself making six figures as a "board member" or "consultant" to an entity which was affected by your legislative activity... poof prison for you. If you are a legislator, and your brother in law gets some sweetheart deal with a company who you steered money to- poof prison. Again the standards would be minimal. Potential corruption would be illegal itself it's kind of like probation. My employee is not even allowed to step into a pawn shop. If he does, poof prison. He doesn't have to try and pawn anything. Soldiers have to give up rights of free speech and association to get E-1 pay.
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on May 19, 2017 9:00:32 GMT -5
Downside would be two-fold: 1. the rare gem like a Rand Paul would be long gone before he was able to form any alliances or produce any change in Mordor. 2. the deep state, agencies, and courts become the dominant driving forces in governance and these reformers we vote in will simply be obstructed and waited out. Six years ain't shit if you're a court or an investigative agency dragging ass. The upsides, however, are fucking astronomic. Imagine a politician proposing a measure that would effectively end his own career and limit his own ambitions? You won't see that shit with a (D) next to it. Bank on it. And 90% of the (R)s won't support this, either. I would rather simply pay all lawmakers two million dollars a year, but subject them to such strict anti corruption standards that 99% of current lawmakers would be in prison. It would probably be the biggest single money saver in history. As it stands, every lawmaker becomes a multi millionaire very quickly after assuming office, but to do so they have to spread around a hundred million tax dollars just to get that cut. Standards of proof would be minimal: if you were a congressman, and ten years later you find yourself making six figures as a "board member" or "consultant" to an entity which was affected by your legislative activity... poof prison for you. If you are a legislator, and your brother in law gets some sweetheart deal with a company who you steered money to- poof prison. Again the standards would be minimal. Potential corruption would be illegal itself it's kind of like probation. My employee is not even allowed to step into a pawn shop. If he does, poof prison. He doesn't have to try and pawn anything. Soldiers have to give up rights of free speech and association to get E-1 pay. This and add that no former senator, state rep, presdient or White House staff can accept a position with any corporation they had political dealings with prior, once there term is finished. Basically no back door payouts for pushing through policies, overturning older ones, or overlooking violations, so they can take care of you later when your political career is done
|
|
|
Post by Baph on May 19, 2017 10:10:02 GMT -5
Downside would be two-fold: 1. the rare gem like a Rand Paul would be long gone before he was able to form any alliances or produce any change in Mordor. 2. the deep state, agencies, and courts become the dominant driving forces in governance and these reformers we vote in will simply be obstructed and waited out. Six years ain't shit if you're a court or an investigative agency dragging ass. The upsides, however, are fucking astronomic. Imagine a politician proposing a measure that would effectively end his own career and limit his own ambitions? You won't see that shit with a (D) next to it. Bank on it. And 90% of the (R)s won't support this, either. I would rather simply pay all lawmakers two million dollars a year, but subject them to such strict anti corruption standards that 99% of current lawmakers would be in prison. It would probably be the biggest single money saver in history. As it stands, every lawmaker becomes a multi millionaire very quickly after assuming office, but to do so they have to spread around a hundred million tax dollars just to get that cut. Standards of proof would be minimal: if you were a congressman, and ten years later you find yourself making six figures as a "board member" or "consultant" to an entity which was affected by your legislative activity... poof prison for you. If you are a legislator, and your brother in law gets some sweetheart deal with a company who you steered money to- poof prison. Again the standards would be minimal. Potential corruption would be illegal itself it's kind of like probation. My employee is not even allowed to step into a pawn shop. If he does, poof prison. He doesn't have to try and pawn anything. Soldiers have to give up rights of free speech and association to get E-1 pay. I would do the same thing with police.
|
|
|
Post by slaytan on May 19, 2017 13:45:47 GMT -5
I would rather simply pay all lawmakers two million dollars a year, but subject them to such strict anti corruption standards that 99% of current lawmakers would be in prison. It would probably be the biggest single money saver in history. As it stands, every lawmaker becomes a multi millionaire very quickly after assuming office, but to do so they have to spread around a hundred million tax dollars just to get that cut. Standards of proof would be minimal: if you were a congressman, and ten years later you find yourself making six figures as a "board member" or "consultant" to an entity which was affected by your legislative activity... poof prison for you. If you are a legislator, and your brother in law gets some sweetheart deal with a company who you steered money to- poof prison. Again the standards would be minimal. Potential corruption would be illegal itself it's kind of like probation. My employee is not even allowed to step into a pawn shop. If he does, poof prison. He doesn't have to try and pawn anything. Soldiers have to give up rights of free speech and association to get E-1 pay. This and add that no former senator, state rep, presdient or White House staff can accept a position with any corporation they had political dealings with prior, once there term is finished. Basically no back door payouts for pushing through policies, overturning older ones, or overlooking violations, so they can take care of you later when your political career is done Yeah I included that. So many former lawmakers, and family members, get bizarre "consultant" or "board positions" at companies which their activities in Washington affected hugely. Journalists occasionally profile a few and find that their duties are to show up to one meeting per year for two hours, and accept their 6 and sometimes 7 figure salaries. Nothing illegal about it whatever, but it should be. I like Baph's idea about cops, but I would couple with that, almost complete immunity from prosecution if they kill you as you flee or resist. There have to be standards of some type but the cop who shot Michael Brown and that Slager fellow in Charleston should never have been exposed to prison. Maybe shitcan Slager from his job after determining that he panicked and made the wrong move, but no criminal prosecution. Some sort of extreme high standard must be met before they re prosecuted
|
|