Slithering Towards Dictatorship

[KD in CA]

3 hours ago, Niagara Bill said:

When Trump is re elected and he will, in the first 90 days you will here talk of increasing time limits past 2 terms. The founding fathers agreed that citizens could carry assault rifles, and did not say 8 yrs max. An internal enemy will be identified, Duck Dynasty guys will blame this group for loss of hunting grounds, Taco Bell will be punished as being non American and Rush L Will be made US Ambassador to UN.

Putin will coach him and Kim will party in the Whitehouse. Trump will proclaim his border wall is greater than the Berlin wall.

 

Or the dems win the election and Bernie bankrupts the country in 24 months.

 

Just like when Rudy used to cover of 9-11 to become permanent mayor of New York.   

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

Just like when Rudy used to cover of 9-11 to become permanent mayor of New York.   

 

Just like when Bloomberg came after Rudy and stayed for three terms because he deemed himself too indispensable to leave after 8 years.

 

[Chandemonium]

1 hour ago, Keukasmallies said:

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind.  When over 80% of us want term limits, why isn't there a strong grass roots movement to push current office holders at the national level to support term limits?

 

At least sign the petition at www.termlimits.com

I think the more important question is if term limits are so popular, why isn’t there a strong grass roots movement to elect someone else? The majority of the electorate can scream for term limits til they’re blue in the face, but when we the people keep re-electing the same incumbents over and over it rings hollow IMO. 

[KD in CA]

28 minutes ago, Chandemonium said:

I think the more important question is if term limits are so popular, why isn’t there a strong grass roots movement to elect someone else? The majority of the electorate can scream for term limits til they’re blue in the face, but when we the people keep re-electing the same incumbents over and over it rings hollow IMO. 

 

1) No one is willing to turn over the seat to the opposition party.

2) Primaries are a rigged game, especially if an incumbent is involved.

[3rdnlng]

All you need to know about imminent domain:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by 3rdnlng

[Chandemonium]

53 minutes ago, KD in CA said:

 

1) No one is willing to turn over the seat to the opposition party.

2) Primaries are a rigged game, especially if an incumbent is involved.

To me while both those points have some validity, they are also just alternative ways of saying that term limits aren’t actually that important to most of the electorate, otherwise both of those obstacles could and would be overcome. 

[KD in CA]

1 minute ago, Chandemonium said:

To me while both those points have some validity, they are also just alternative ways of saying that term limits aren’t actually that important to most of the electorate, otherwise both of those obstacles could and would be overcome. 

Difficult to wrest power from those who have it.  Which is why observant people are reluctant to hand even more power to the government.

[keepthefaith]

4 hours ago, Chandemonium said:

I think the more important question is if term limits are so popular, why isn’t there a strong grass roots movement to elect someone else? The majority of the electorate can scream for term limits til they’re blue in the face, but when we the people keep re-electing the same incumbents over and over it rings hollow IMO. 

 

https://www.termlimits.com/petition/

https://www.termlimits.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/116thCongressPledgeSigners.pdf

 

[Chandemonium]

2 hours ago, KD in CA said:

Difficult to wrest power from those who have it.  Which is why observant people are reluctant to hand even more power to the government.

I agree 100%. In the context of term limits, I would posit that enacting term limits does in fact hand more power to the government, as it places a limit on the electorate’s power to choose their representation by taking away the ability to re-elect a popular, effective incumbent. 

[Cinga]

59 minutes ago, Chandemonium said:

I agree 100%. In the context of term limits, I would posit that enacting term limits does in fact hand more power to the government, as it places a limit on the electorate’s power to choose their representation by taking away the ability to re-elect a popular, effective incumbent. 

 

Oh????????????? Name one of those Effective incumbents then...

 

Face it. To most people they view it as "my Representative and Senators are okay, it's all those other #######s that are screwed up" .  

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, Chandemonium said:

I agree 100%. In the context of term limits, I would posit that enacting term limits does in fact hand more power to the government, as it places a limit on the electorate’s power to choose their representation by taking away the ability to re-elect a popular, effective incumbent. 

 

Then again, it would reduce power held by government officials who are there to enrich themselves through connections made and lobbyist dollars received. I strongly support term limits, especially for the house, and I'm glad as hell that the president only gets two terms.

[Taro T]

20 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Then again, it would reduce power held by government officials who are there to enrich themselves through connections made and lobbyist dollars received. I strongly support term limits, especially for the house, and I'm glad as hell that the president only gets two terms.

 

It would reduce the ability of ELECTED officials to enrich themselves.  Unelected staffers gain even more power as it won't take long for all of them to be in Washington longer than their bosses that we send there.

 

Absolutely support the concept of term limits, but haven't heard a proposal yet that doesn't create more problems than it solves.

[Chandemonium]

1 hour ago, Cinga said:

 

Oh????????????? Name one of those Effective incumbents then...

 

Face it. To most people they view it as "my Representative and Senators are okay, it's all those other #######s that are screwed up" .  

The point isn’t if any of the current people in office are effective or not. The point is, if one were, would you want the ability to keep them there or be forced by the government to get rid of them? I’d rather the electorate be able to decide who stays or who goes and when. We already have the ability to limit terms for the house every two years and the senate every six, but we consistently choose not to. That shows me that to most people who claim to support term limits it either isn’t that important of an issue, or to you second point, they support them for those other guys but not when it come to their own. 

 

49 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Then again, it would reduce power held by government officials who are there to enrich themselves through connections made and lobbyist dollars received. I strongly support term limits, especially for the house, and I'm glad as hell that the president only gets two terms.

reducing graft is definitely an issue I’m on board with, I just don’t think term limits would do as much to that end as most proponents of term limits do, and would be less effective than other potential reforms in lobbying and campaign finance. I’m fine with presidential term limits because as the head of the executive branch he was never intended to be a direct representative of the people and has as much power by himself as all 535 members of Congress put together, but I remain leery of congressional term limits because of the restriction it places on the people’s ability to choose their representation.

Edited February 3, 2020 by Chandemonium

[Azalin]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

 

It would reduce the ability of ELECTED officials to enrich themselves.  Unelected staffers gain even more power as it won't take long for all of them to be in Washington longer than their bosses that we send there.

 

Absolutely support the concept of term limits, but haven't heard a proposal yet that doesn't create more problems than it solves.

 

1 hour ago, Chandemonium said:

The point isn’t if any of the current people in office are effective or not. The point is, if one were, would you want the ability to keep them there or be forced by the government to get rid of them? I’d rather the electorate be able to decide who stays or who goes and when. We already have the ability to limit terms for the house every two years and the senate every six, but we consistently choose not to. That shows me that to most people who claim to support term limits it either isn’t that important of an issue, or to you second point, they support them for those other guys but not when it come to their own. 

 

reducing graft is definitely an issue I’m on board with, I just don’t think term limits would do as much to that end as most proponents of term limits do, and would be less effective than other potential reforms in lobbying and campaign finance. I’m fine with presidential term limits because as the head of the executive branch he was never intended to be a direct representative of the people and has as much power by himself as all 535 members of Congress put together, but I remain leery of congressional term limits because of the restriction it places on the people’s ability to choose their representation.

 

I don't necessarily disagree, but speaking strictly for myself, I believe that most of our elected public servants are in it to feed their egos and to enrich themselves, to the point where many of them work hand-in-glove behind the scenes regardless of party affiliation at our expense (the swamp/uniparty/etc). Limiting the time they can serve might go a long way in aiding this administration's attempt to rid us of "the establishment" by limiting their access to power.

 

Even if I'm totally wrong in my presumption, how many Senators and Congressmen truly deserve to continue holding office as long as they do? Sure, limiting their terms of office will mean some good ones are forced to step down, but there are far fewer honest, effective ones in office than there are crooks, bitter partisans, and self-serving egomaniacs. I think that would be a net positive trade-off.

[Taro T]

7 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

 

I don't necessarily disagree, but speaking strictly for myself, I believe that most of our elected public servants are in it to feed their egos and to enrich themselves, to the point where many of them work hand-in-glove behind the scenes regardless of party affiliation at our expense (the swamp/uniparty/etc). Limiting the time they can serve might go a long way in aiding this administration's attempt to rid us of "the establishment" by limiting their access to power.

 

Even if I'm totally wrong in my presumption, how many Senators and Congressmen truly deserve to continue holding office as long as they do? Sure, limiting their terms of office will mean some good ones are forced to step down, but there are far fewer honest, effective ones in office than there are crooks, bitter partisans, and self-serving egomaniacs. I think that would be a net positive trade-off.

 

And, again, adding term limits cuts down on the ability for elected officials to be corrupt in theory.  We agree there.  But it increases the power the career staffers end up wielding and the staffers are only beholden to their boss, not the electorate.  My expectation is we'd see things get even worse in that regard.

 

And term limits might backfire on another front as well, they might also raise the stakes for members of the House especially in the big states as there will be an order of magnitude more of them vying to hold one of their state's 2 Senate seats as that is the next step for them and they can no longer abide their time in the House.

 

 

[Azalin]

26 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

And, again, adding term limits cuts down on the ability for elected officials to be corrupt in theory.  We agree there.  But it increases the power the career staffers end up wielding and the staffers are only beholden to their boss, not the electorate.  My expectation is we'd see things get even worse in that regard.

 

And term limits might backfire on another front as well, they might also raise the stakes for members of the House especially in the big states as there will be an order of magnitude more of them vying to hold one of their state's 2 Senate seats as that is the next step for them and they can no longer abide their time in the House.

 

 

 

I guess I'm failing to understand what power a staffer, career or otherwise actually has. They can't vote on bills, they aren't lobbied, and they can easily be fired. I don't understand what kind of relationship, or bond of trust, a congressional staffer has toward the electorate at large, so maybe I'm missing something there.

 

My personal take on congressional reps offering campaign support to senators is simply that if that's the way their constituents want them to spend their time, then fine. Otherwise, two years ain't a whole lot of time to do the work that they were sent to Washington to do.

[Tiberius]

Trump's electing was really unexpected. Who would vote for such a degenerate, right? 

 

Same thing can happen with Bernie. Bernie with Absolute Authority? 

 

Feeling the Bern? 

[Taro T]

4 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

I guess I'm failing to understand what power a staffer, career or otherwise actually has. They can't vote on bills, they aren't lobbied, and they can easily be fired. I don't understand what kind of relationship, or bond of trust, a congressional staffer has toward the electorate at large, so maybe I'm missing something there.

 

My personal take on congressional reps offering campaign support to senators is simply that if that's the way their constituents want them to spend their time, then fine. Otherwise, two years ain't a whole lot of time to do the work that they were sent to Washington to do.

 

To the top paragraph, if the staffers are there for a couple decades but the Congress Critter they work for can only be there for 6 years max, then they will know the lobbyists a lot better than their boss will and they will be even more involved in actually crafting the legislation their bosses sponsor and eventually vote on.  If the Congress critter is daily hearing from his staff a certain message, that will resonate with many of them. 

 

And, different circumstances but analogous to a point, look at how hard it's been for 45 to root out the Ciaramellas from the Executive branch.  When Congress faces the same sort of limits on tenure that the President faces, they'll face similar issues, IMHO.

 

To the lower paragraph, my point must not have been clear.  Wasn't saying the Reps would be working to help the Senators, was saying they'd be working to BECOME the Senators.  And the best way for them to make names for themselves in the limited time they have to do so is to get the big bucks lobbyists supporting them and getting them in contact with "the right people."  Which just screams out as an opportunity for corruption IMHO.

[Tiberius]

So it is ok if Trump is working with world leaders right now to steal/influence or otherwise fix the election. 

 

There would be nothing wrong with that, according to the Senate 

[Azalin]

5 hours ago, Taro T said:

 

To the top paragraph, if the staffers are there for a couple decades but the Congress Critter they work for can only be there for 6 years max, then they will know the lobbyists a lot better than their boss will and they will be even more involved in actually crafting the legislation their bosses sponsor and eventually vote on.  If the Congress critter is daily hearing from his staff a certain message, that will resonate with many of them. 

 

And, different circumstances but analogous to a point, look at how hard it's been for 45 to root out the Ciaramellas from the Executive branch.  When Congress faces the same sort of limits on tenure that the President faces, they'll face similar issues, IMHO.

 

To the lower paragraph, my point must not have been clear.  Wasn't saying the Reps would be working to help the Senators, was saying they'd be working to BECOME the Senators.  And the best way for them to make names for themselves in the limited time they have to do so is to get the big bucks lobbyists supporting them and getting them in contact with "the right people."  Which just screams out as an opportunity for corruption IMHO.

 

Agree to disagree, with the concession that term limits is pretty much a pipe dream anyway, considering that it would be the very people affected by the term limits that would be passing the legislation.

 

The fact that they don't seem to want to pass it tells me that it would be bad for them and good for us.