• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Secretary of State Romney?

Back of the.........room

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
 
birdman said:
Congress is already run by lobbyists.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but at least they don't write EVERY bill at this point. Put a bunch of newbies in office every 6 years and guess who will actually be running the show?
 
knowell said:
Pretty great if I recall. Brought the economy out of the Carter malaise in record time. Let's hope Trump has some of that same magic.
Click to expand...

If economy = top 5%, then you nailed it.

Motherjones2.png
 
Jeff sessions as AG? Ugh

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Yeah, but at least they don't write EVERY bill at this point. Put a bunch of newbies in office every 6 years and guess who will actually be running the show?
Click to expand...

Every bill is written by either a current lobbyist or a future lobbyist.

I agree that 6 is two short. Lets try 12 for the house and 18 for the senate, and limits on post congressional employment.
 
birdman said:
Every bill is written by either a current lobbyist or a future lobbyist.

I agree that 6 is two short. Lets try 12 for the house and 18 for the senate, and limits on post congressional employment.
Click to expand...

While right now every bill in Congress is influenced in some way by a special interest (lobbyist is too specific a term), they usually aren't literally written by those interests. But at the state level, which often has less experienced reps, they are passing bills verbatim to the language handed to them by outside groups.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
While right now every bill in Congress is influenced in some way by a special interest (lobbyist is too specific a term), they usually aren't literally written by those interests. But at the state level, which often has less experienced reps, they are passing bills verbatim to the language handed to them by outside groups.
Click to expand...

I guess it depends on how you define "usually" and "often" bu the liberal rag NPR disagrees with you:

"It's taken for granted that lobbyists influence legislation. But perhaps less obvious is that they often write the actual bills — even word for word."

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...73620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill
 
birdman said:
I guess it depends on how you define "usually" and "often" bu the liberal rag NPR disagrees with you:

"It's taken for granted that lobbyists influence legislation. But perhaps less obvious is that they often write the actual bills — even word for word."

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...73620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill
Click to expand...

So your solution to an existing problem is create an environment that would further exacerbate the problem? Again, there is a middle ground, but when it comes to "draining the swamp" term limits aren't going to move the needle.
 
P4nthers11 said:
So your solution to an existing problem is create an environment that would further exacerbate the problem? Again, there is a middle ground, but when it comes to "draining the swamp" term limits aren't going to move the needle.
Click to expand...

I did not suggest exacerbating it. I suggested setting 12 year limits (6 terms!) on the house seat and 18 year limits (3 terms!) on the Senate seats and also putting limits on post congress employment.
 
I don't think it's a done deal that term limits will exacerbate the problem anymore than further partisanship will.
 
PhDeac said:
I don't think it's a done deal that term limits will exacerbate the problem anymore than further partisanship will.
Click to expand...

It may not make things worse, but I don't see how it helps anything. Unless your goal is to further neuter congress.
 
Major Garrett just said on Diane Rehm that any meeting between Trump and Romney is to give the impression of mending of fences. He very specifically said there is no way Romney has a position in the Trump administration.
 
knowell said:
Eyes wide shut.
Click to expand...

maybe so.

But I hear this rallying cry from the "average Americans" who feel the "elitists" are talking down to them, and I wonder then why they go dumb instead of smart. Instead of harnessing the power of the internet and information that is out there to inform themselves on labor and globalization and banking to best the elitists, they instead go dumb and tune into people like Bannon and Hannity and Trump who feed their fury but don;t give them the straight poop.

So they throw their support behind the guy who is blaming the Mexicans and the Muslims and email servers for all their problems, when their actual problems are caused by people just like Trump. The liberal elitists weren't fixing all their problems overnight, I agree. But liberal thinkers (not necessarily liberal politicians) have been poring over data and exposing the tyranny of banking and management and polluters and exploiters of cheap labor for some time now. The true heroes are Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, not these hucksters they voted in.
 
So Trump is keeping people distracted with leaks about Romney and a fake Ford plant news story while actually hiring Michael Flynn and Jeff Sessions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top