• 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!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

DeacsPop said:
No, wrong. That reasoning supports the same bull shit System we are currently under. Simply saying you can vote out the crap is flawed logic.
Incumbents have money, have party support and only wish to get re elected. Their influence and power is based only on their not losing their seat. Not on "rocking the boat".
Term limits (EVERYONE, gets 4 years) brings in new blood and new fresh ideas and intelligent, civic minded people who want to serve the people, not build power and control.

And I voted for 40 years. I did my time and unfortunately, little has changed.
Click to expand...

Comprehensive campaign finance reform and independent redistricting directly address your first point about money and party support.

To ChrisL's point, he's right. Removing all institutional knowledge with rapid turnover in elected positions is a lobbyist's wet dream. Also, if they know that they only have 4 years in the job max, you better be ready to either guarantee a much higher pension or brace for worse influence from lobbyists and corporations so elected officials can set up their next gig.

If someone is highly effective at their job, they should be able to keep it as long as they are still sharp enough to do the work. Force them to defend their work every election cycle in a fairly drawn district with a campaign that's publicly financed and you'll start seeing the change you want to see.

And maybe it's not a matter of doing your time and voting for 40 years, but rather who you voted for?
 
Institutional knowledge my ass.
There is no basis in fact that a bright, honest and trust worthy individual with a solid background and experience elected to a federal position would bring anything but fresh ideas and a fresh perspective.
And not beholding to the bullshit elected Officials are too now. You get someone who wants to serve. Make it 6 years if that works for you, but one and DONE.
 
DeacsPop said:
Institutional knowledge my ass.
There is no basis in fact that a bright, honest and trust worthy individual with a solid background and experience elected to a federal position would bring anything but fresh ideas and a fresh perspective.
And not beholding to the bullshit elected Officials are too now. You get someone who wants to serve. Make it 6 years if that works for you, but one and DONE.
Click to expand...

On second thought, maybe its better that you don't vote.
 
Frosty said:
Comprehensive campaign finance reform and independent redistricting directly address your first point about money and party support.

To ChrisL's point, he's right. Removing all institutional knowledge with rapid turnover in elected positions is a lobbyist's wet dream. Also, if they know that they only have 4 years in the job max, you better be ready to either guarantee a much higher pension or brace for worse influence from lobbyists and corporations so elected officials can set up their next gig.

If someone is highly effective at their job, they should be able to keep it as long as they are still sharp enough to do the work. Force them to defend their work every election cycle in a fairly drawn district with a campaign that's publicly financed and you'll start seeing the change you want to see.

And maybe it's not a matter of doing your time and voting for 40 years, but rather who you voted for?
Click to expand...

This is a great post - Frosty 2020!
 
DeacsPop said:
Institutional knowledge my ass.
There is no basis in fact that a bright, honest and trust worthy individual with a solid background and experience elected to a federal position would bring anything but fresh ideas and a fresh perspective.
And not beholding to the bullshit elected Officials are too now. You get someone who wants to serve. Make it 6 years if that works for you, but one and DONE.
Click to expand...

I mean if there are lobbyists in their position for 20 years and congress has to turn over every four how do you think that decreases the likelihood that lobbyists increase their control of the process beyond what they already have? It takes time to even figure out what’s going on at the institutional level. Imagine the shit show of trying to get legislation passed when the speaker of the house is not only the most experienced at 4.5 years in but also doesn’t give a flying fuck about doing anything beyond what gets them paid because they have one foot out the door and lobbyists in their ear non-stop.
 
I don’t see how they can put a term limit on a SC Justice (something I support, by the way) without a constitutional amendment.
 
I’m still getting over Pop saying nothing has changed over the last 40 years.
 
We're still fightin' them socialist libruls whut wants to change everthin' an' give unfair advantages to them OTHER people.

And taxes is still (always) too high...why does the gub'mint always wants to take MY MONEY and give it to the benefit of OTHERS!

And don't let's get me started on that thar DEBT. Or REGULATIONS.






And, of course, ABORTION.





Same old struggles.





No wonder endlessly prattling against these evil wicked things that never go away has been a winning strategy for Pubs.


And they offer no actual solutions to problems beyond some occasional spasm of (sometimes quite irrational) tax cuts, (mostly harmful) regulatory cuts, and just trying to undo whatever the Democrats accomplished because that has to be a good idea.
 
PhDeac said:
I’m still getting over Pop saying nothing has changed over the last 40 years.
Click to expand...

PH, really? You just love to twist one words to fit your own agenda, What ever that might be.
I am not even going to ask what your interpretation of my words mean. I am so done with your nonsense I just don’t even give a damn.
 
Pops do you have any thoughts on the lobbyist influence if we had short term limits?

How about the comparison the other day about pushing a nominee through quickly and court expansion?
 
DeacsPop said:
PH, really? You just love to twist one words to fit your own agenda, What ever that might be.
I am not even going to ask what your interpretation of my words mean. I am so done with your nonsense I just don’t even give a damn.
Click to expand...

I don’t want to put words into PH’s mouth but I think he’s pretty invested in some of the ongoing social issues that the GOP is taking a hard line on.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Pops do you have any thoughts on the lobbyist influence if we had short term limits?

How about the comparison the other day about pushing a nominee through quickly and court expansion?
Click to expand...

I think the lobbying effect on individuals on a single term would be less. Less familiarity if you know what I mean. Just my opinion.

I also had a long discussion the other night with 06 about Court expansion and the process that will soon begin. Check the thread.

Not sure what PH's problem with me. I was referring to my 40 year voting history and how little has changed with the our System of electing officials and I no longer am participating in the bull shit. No way I was even referring that "nothing has changed" socially.

The guy seems to be alway looking for an argument. Whatever.
 
PhDeac said:
I’m still getting over Pop saying nothing has changed over the last 40 years.
Click to expand...

Shit we’ve had 3 GOP-caused recessions in that time just to name one thing
 
I think I saw that thread and it’s what I responded to with my posts as well but I’ll check it out.
 
DeacsPop said:
I think the lobbying effect on individuals on a single term would be less. Less familiarity if you know what I mean. Just my opinion.

I also had a long discussion the other night with 06 about Court expansion and the process that will soon begin. Check the thread.

Not sure what PH's problem with me. I was referring to my 40 year voting history and how little has changed with the our System of electing officials and I no longer am participating in the bull shit. No way I was even referring that "nothing has changed" socially.

The guy seems to be alway looking for an argument. Whatever.
Click to expand...

I’m looking for an argument? Why would you think I was talking about something different than you were talking about? I wasn’t. I was talking your ridiculous claim that politics hasn’t changed in 40 years.

Stop looking for a way to avoid backing up your claims. Things have changed mostly for the worst because of cynical GOP politics.

But even if you believe they haven’t, I can’t think of a more ridiculous position that being angry that 40 years of voting for conservatives hasn’t resulted in enough change. What change did you want?
 
Clean out your ears and read my post. You want to be pissed at the whole world, have at it. Just put me on ignore.

No one said, “politics” haven’t changed. I said how we elect officials, being prey to their cronyism, deceitfulness and lack of following the wishes of the people that elected them in my 40 years of voting hasn’t changed. It is why I want term limits, campaign reform, etc.

It’s not being about a Pub, or a Dem, it’s about being a bullshit Politician only interested in getting elected and their power base. You want to put that all on the GOP, have at it. But you’re dead wrong. They are all alike.

But the only change I would prefer right now is you lose my number and take your anger elsewhere.
 
I reject your "all alike" premise. Maybe all politicians are beyond the line you consider acceptable but that doesn't mean that there is not a massive gap between the two parties at this point. It's like saying "I don't want to go more than five feet deep in the water" and then saying that everything past that depth is all the same when one party is three feet away from you and the other is hanging off the coast of Bermuda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top