Term limits

[biggentleben]

 

As a 25 year old with very little interest in hard-core politics, I wonder why a person my age would ever consider running for office and be a "career politician". There have been a lot of great points brought up in this thread, and I guess I'm making more of an effort to educate myself on the matter. I can tell you I voted Obama as an 18 year old in '08, because I bought into the "Change" marketing campaign. I voted for Romney in 2012 because I felt that a strong business background could help kick start the economy back to where it was.... 

 

The salaries mentioned earlier by Dave were eye-opening for Congress and the President. It's not a humble brag in your previous post, there are numerous careers out there that make more than they do.. Glunn's idea about having more televised debates for the lesser knowns out there - I can get behind it, but it's getting harder and harder these days to see the truth in those debates. The Republican debates lately I feel like are 100% for TV ratings, and they are saying outlandish things so they can be covered by every media outlet. I suppose they COULD be that crazy with their values, and if that's the case, god help us all. 

 

I don't have any solutions to offer up. As a new person in the field, I find all of this to be insane. All I'm looking for when I vote for the next president is the values I believe in, and the rest will all be white noise. However, I will still read a site like this to find political commentary over a Facebook, CNN, Fox News, (pick your poison) As a person just learning the ropes, those are way too hostile of environments to learn anything. 

 

That's a good, balanced approach to it. I'm a registered independent, and consider myself a fiscal conservative and social liberal (and they can match up). What I will say is don't be surprised if your choices are not for someone that you can believe in as much as it is for someone who offends you the least. Sadly, that's much of what the political landscape has become because of the strong pandering to the fringes of the voting base on both sides.

[Vanimal46]

 

That's a good, balanced approach to it. I'm a registered independent, and consider myself a fiscal conservative and social liberal (and they can match up). What I will say is don't be surprised if your choices are not for someone that you can believe in as much as it is for someone who offends you the least. Sadly, that's much of what the political landscape has become because of the strong pandering to the fringes of the voting base on both sides.

 

We have similar beliefs for being fiscally conservative and more liberal on the social issues. I am starting to learn that's the case with these candidates; everyone has flaws and says outlandish things, I don't know who offends me the least yet. 

[Hrbowski]

 

What? That Democrats prefer the government regulate industry rather than industry regulate itself has nothing to do with Conservative efforts to disenfranchise voting-eligible citizens who disagree with their policies.  No one is in favor of larger bureaucracy or inefficiency.  I wish the EPA could be privatized; or the banks knew better than to invest so heavily in speculation. The efforts of conservatives to make voting more difficult is unforgivable.  

The Republican efforts for Voting ID is not to "disenfranchise voting-eligible citizens who disagree with their policies" but an attempt to enforce laws against voting fraud, whether Democrats want to admit it is a problem or not. I don't know a single Republican who wants to stop voting-eligible citizens from voting, and when people voted in approval of Voter ID in Minnesota they were not trying to stop poor people from voting, so when liberals say that it is just untrue.

[Squirrel]

 

The Republican efforts for Voting ID is not to "disenfranchise voting-eligible citizens who disagree with their policies"

 

Yes, it is.

 

What rampant voter fraud is there out there?

[stringer bell]

 

The Republican efforts for Voting ID is not to "disenfranchise voting-eligible citizens who disagree with their policies" but an attempt to enforce laws against voting fraud, whether Democrats want to admit it is a problem or not. I don't know a single Republican who wants to stop voting-eligible citizens from voting, and when people voted in approval of Voter ID in Minnesota they were not trying to stop poor people from voting, so when liberals say that it is just untrue.

Because someone says it is not true doesn't mean it is true or it isn't. I certainly believe that one party sees a benefit in lower voter turnout and further I believe that the Photo ID is a vehicle to lower voter turnout in what they view as constituencies of the other party.

 

At the very best, the "solutions" for voter fraud are killing a gnat with a sledgehammer. I think more likely it is a smokescreen for voter suppression, as well as limiting polling times and having fewer polling places in heavily Democratic precincts. Anything to get that 1% to 2% frustrated enough to walk away or not go to the polling place at all. If you google "voter suppression" you can find many instances where Republicans and former Republicans admit that their goal is to win elections and that voter fraud is a subterfuge.

[Hrbowski]

 

Anything to get that 1% to 2% frustrated enough to walk away or not go to the polling place at all. If you google "voter suppression" you can find many instances where Republicans and former Republicans admit that their goal is to win elections and that voter fraud is a subterfuge.

So, are you trying to say that Democrats goal isn't to win elections? I suppose if that is what they are doing they are going by Homer Simpson's philosophy of, "Trying is the first step toward failure." Both parties goal is to win elections, and voter fraud is not subterfuge any more than the Democrats song and dance about needing more and more welfare, just to get lower income voters to the polls.

[TheLeviathan]

Well, as long as we agree that targeting voter fraud is pandering to win elections (like both parties do on a host of issues) - I think we're all in agreement.

 

We just won't agree about "which is worst?" so I'm not sure it's worth hashing out.

[PseudoSABR]

 

So, are you trying to say that Democrats goal isn't to win elections? I suppose if that is what they are doing they are going by Homer Simpson's philosophy of, "Trying is the first step toward failure." Both parties goal is to win elections, and voter fraud is not subterfuge any more than the Democrats song and dance about needing more and more welfare, just to get lower income voters to the polls.

Okay.  Look your premise is fundamentally faulty.   The way our voting process  is set up already places many obstacles that keep the working poor, the indigent, and the infirm from voting.  Much of this, as regular internet users, we might take for granted--time, health, transportation, child-care, safety, etc.  Pandering to these people does not make it any more easier for them to overcome these obstacles, much less ones that would have them go get a special ID, that they probably would have little notice that they would need, would take weeks to process, and probably ask for documents that are administratively difficult to obtain.  The implication of your post is that these people are only worthy of democracy if they can overcome the bureaucratic gauntlet conservatives lay down in front of them.

 

We all agree crime is bad, yet we do not empower the police to pull everyone over without cause and search them; we'd sure catch more criminals.  Why don't we? Is it because we support criminals!? 

 

There are values in our constitution that protect our liberty. Liberty means the freedom to walk about in public and not be asked to prove that you are not a criminal or to show your papers so that you belong where you say you do.  As much as conservative ideology supposedly rails against totalitarianism, and champions liberty, so much of their policy restricts the access of our society to their American neighbors. 

[mikecgrimes]

 

I'm not, but thanks for assuming. I'm not sure why any attempt to further a discussion is an attack. When what the "blinders for the right" folks see a financial incentive for those who are under-privileged or disabled, it's a hand out, and lots of rhetoric follows. Even if you and I got the same ID for free, others would be pissed off because it makes it easier for illegal immigration or for the Muslims to destroy America or something else that's a typical response to any attempt at assisting those who are in need.

 

It's just pretty obvious the rhetoric on voting that comes from one side when they follow it up with the redistricting BS that happened, so do voter registration arguments come off as against Republicans? Yes, but it's 100% of the party's doing, not those who are attempting to have the debate.

 

So you project that I'm gonna call the people with free ID's drug users or program abusers but my assumption that you're a democrat bothers you.  Are you willing to honestly answer who you voted for in the last three presidential elections and the last 3 Governor elections and the last 3 US senate elections?  

[biggentleben]

So you project that I'm gonna call the people with free ID's drug users or program abusers but my assumption that you're a democrat bothers you. Are you willing to honestly answer who you voted for in the last three presidential elections and the last 3 Governor elections and the last 3 US senate elections?

No, my issue lies in my putting a projection on a group of people sharing the argument that you are making, not you personally, and having the return remark intended individually.

 

Your request is not only absurd, but also incredibly offensive in a country where democracy and Liberty are valued. No one has the right to ever request your individual election voting record. In fact, your employer would be violating federal law to even ask and would face federal employment sanctions. What I will tell you is that I honestly do not remember each election, but I know in the four presidential elections I've been able to participate in, I've voted for three parties.

[formerly33]

 

So you project that I'm gonna call the people with free ID's drug users or program abusers but my assumption that you're a democrat bothers you.  Are you willing to honestly answer who you voted for in the last three presidential elections and the last 3 Governor elections and the last 3 US senate elections?  

Coming from a conservative: does it matter? No. Don't ask.

 

Personally, I would vote for Sanders over Trump. Does that make me a democrat? No.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Coming from a conservative: does it matter? No. Don't ask.

 

Personally, I would vote for Sanders over Trump. Does that make me a democrat? No.

 

Voting for either Trump or Sanders would make you a Democrat

[mikecgrimes]

 

No, my issue lies in my putting a projection on a group of people sharing the argument that you are making, not you personally, and having the return remark intended individually.

Your request is not only absurd, but also incredibly offensive in a country where democracy and Liberty are valued. No one has the right to ever request your individual election voting record. In fact, your employer would be violating federal law to even ask and would face federal employment sanctions. What I will tell you is that I honestly do not remember each election, but I know in the four presidential elections I've been able to participate in, I've voted for three parties.

 

Any of those three parties Republican or Democrat?

 

I'm the one that proposed free ID's.  Maybe some people would be mad that 21+ year olds would then when carded use the free idea when doing something that is legal with there own money.  Those would be stupid people, I don't think stupid people are thinking of the photo ID issue and how to fairly issue it as an effort to prevent fraud and nothing else.  Maybe those people are racist or hate poor people.  If it was really about race or hatred of poor people there's a simple solution.  Vote multiple times in every election.

[biggentleben]

 

Any of those three parties Republican or Democrat?

 

I'm the one that proposed free ID's.  Maybe some people would be mad that 21+ year olds would then when carded use the free idea when doing something that is legal with there own money.  Those would be stupid people, I don't think stupid people are thinking of the photo ID issue and how to fairly issue it as an effort to prevent fraud and nothing else.  Maybe those people are racist or hate poor people.  If it was really about race or hatred of poor people there's a simple solution.  Vote multiple times in every election.

 

Both, but seriously, why would it matter if I voted Green Party, Libertarian, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster Party? My views are not defined by a party, and my vote does not define my views. In a perfect system, that may have some validity, but we're far from a perfect system.

[USAFChief]

So, are you trying to say that Democrats goal isn't to win elections? I suppose if that is what they are doing they are going by Homer Simpson's philosophy of, "Trying is the first step toward failure." Both parties goal is to win elections, and voter fraud is not subterfuge any more than the Democrats song and dance about needing more and more welfare, just to get lower income voters to the polls.

One method of trying to win elections: get more citizens who agree with you to vote

 

Another method: prevent citizens who disagree with you from voting

 

Those are both methods of winning elections, but that is their only similarity.

[formerly33]

 

Voting for either Trump or Sanders would make you a Democrat

I would disagree. There are plenty of *dumb* republicans (you couldn't call them anything else) who adore Trump. For some reason they've allowed themselves to be brainwashed by his BS ... they like him because they think he'll accomplish something. Regardless of your opinion of me, I am a conservative; however, I'm not so sure I want to classify myself as either "republican" or "democrat." And, saying that, these fans of Trump are much, much more conservative than I am. So yeah, I'm forced to disagree with you ... voting for Trump wouldn't make me a democrat. It would only make me a dumb republican.

 

And Sanders? I thought voting for him would make you a socialist.

 

By the way, my original intent in entering this discussion was not to bicker about what defines someone as a republican or democrat. I was merely trying to point out the absurdity in bantering on that subject. You're hijacking the thread. If you respond to this post to further the argument, I'm not going to reply. We're discussing term limits, not whether certain TD members are republican or democrat (ultimately coming to the conclusion that if you're a republican you're in the right and if you're a democrat you're in the wrong).

 

And one final thought before exiting the conversation: not voting for Trump doesn't make you a smart republican.

[stringer bell]

 

So, are you trying to say that Democrats goal isn't to win elections? I suppose if that is what they are doing they are going by Homer Simpson's philosophy of, "Trying is the first step toward failure." Both parties goal is to win elections, and voter fraud is not subterfuge any more than the Democrats song and dance about needing more and more welfare, just to get lower income voters to the polls.

Certainly both political parties want to win elections. However, I consider elections as something where legislation is designed to make voting and counting the votes fair, easy and transparent. Using election procedures and processes as a way to "put your thumb on the scale" is over the line.

 

Manipulating election laws in registration or adding a barrier like Photo ID is an example. Republicans have trumped up the specter of rampant voter fraud as a means to pass laws that they think will help them win elections. I think that is over the line.

 

Gerrymandering has been mentioned, as well. There is ample evidence that gerrymandering is a large component in the current Republican House majority. There is also evidence that Democrats held onto a House majority in part because of gerrymandering. I think boundary-drawing should be taken out of politician's hands.
 

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

 

Gerrymandering has been mentioned, as well. There is ample evidence that gerrymandering is a large component in the current Republican House majority. There is also evidence that Democrats held onto a House majority in part because of gerrymandering. I think boundary-drawing should be taken out of politician's hands.
 

 

Thats one of those things that sounds good in theory but is next to impossible to implement.  Who does it?  Even if you say a computer someone has to program in the criteria.  You could put it in the hands of some company in Denmark and it would still be partisan.  The only way this all changes is to involve major jail time if not the death penalty on anyone who manipulates the process, problem is much like voter fraud thats really hard to prove.

[stringer bell]

 

Thats one of those things that sounds good in theory but is next to impossible to implement.  Who does it?  Even if you say a computer someone has to program in the criteria.  You could put it in the hands of some company in Denmark and it would still be partisan.  The only way this all changes is to involve major jail time if not the death penalty on anyone who manipulates the process, problem is much like voter fraud thats really hard to prove.

Iowa and Arizona have both removed the politicians with good results. Minnesota's lines were drawn by a three-judge panel and the Congressional Districts seem pretty fair. Compared to states where one party or the other has "the trifecta" and I will take non-partisan every time.

[mikecgrimes]

 

Iowa and Arizona have both removed the politicians with good results. Minnesota's lines were drawn by a three-judge panel and the Congressional Districts seem pretty fair. Compared to states where one party or the other has "the trifecta" and I will take non-partisan every time.

 

No question some places are worse then others, it's a matter of who's in those positions at the times the lines are drawn.  Right now those places are working, and the process is probably much more difficult to manipulate, but with the wrong people in those positions it still has the potential to fall apart.

[stringer bell]

To go one step further on the gerrymandering, it makes for bad government. To use Minnesota as an example, there are three "safe" Congressional Districts made up now of McCollum, Ellison, and Emmer (formerly Bachmann), who happen to be the most extreme members of the Minnesota contingent of Congress. When there is one-party rule in a Congressional District, it tends to produce more hard-liners. There is only one flank to protect and no serious risk (barring scandal) of being thrown out by the voters.

[DaveW]

 

And by the way, I don't think your explanation about convicted felons voting democratic are good, why would somebody vote for one party just because they are a minority? I don't think Hillary Clinton is any more pro-minority than Jeb Bush,

The numbers clearly show year in and year out that minorities (especially African Americans) vote very heavily democratic.

And lets say we will agree to disagree on Clinton vs Bush when it comes to miniorties (In in sense of the word)