President Trump

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by wkmac, Jan 15, 2017.

  1. Old Man Jingles

    Old Man Jingles Rat out of a cage

    They badgered @cheryl so much that I felt I should resign as a Moderator.
    You don't care about others so you wouldn't understand.
  2. Fred's Myth

    Fred's Myth Nonhyphenated American

    Outlaw lobbying, in conjunction with term limits.
  3. bbsam

    bbsam Moderator Staff Member

    Keep coming back.
  4. LarryBird

    LarryBird Well-Known Member

    That's a good idea, but probably unrealistic. Trying to outlaw lobbying will only push it farther into the shadows, and the last thing we need is more dark money in politics.

    Lobbying actually can be a good thing at times, especially when it's for the public good. Unfortunately that's not the case very often, and it's usually done in the interest of loosening the regulations put in place that protect the public good and our environment.
  5. It will be fine

    It will be fine Well-Known Member

    That still leaves an unelected bureaucracy running things. If only staffers remain for more than a 2 year House term, they’ll be the ones in charge with the elected officials being nothing but figureheads. Removing accountability won’t do us any good.
  6. It will be fine

    It will be fine Well-Known Member

    They’re called laboratories of democracy for a reason. We try stuff in states and see what happens before expanding the plans to a national level. Ohio tried term limits, power shifted farther to lobbyists and unelected staffers that were around long enough to build the relationships required to govern. I’d prefer people in power be accountable to the electorate, but to each their own.
  7. cosmo1

    cosmo1 Perhaps. Staff Member

  8. Fred's Myth

    Fred's Myth Nonhyphenated American

    It’s Holmes, not homes.
  9. LarryBird

    LarryBird Well-Known Member

    The staffers are the ones that truly run :censored2:. The elected officials, while they have the final say, are basically only a rubber stamp in most instances.

    They surely don't write the bills, and they usually don't even read them either. They're basically as good as the staff and counsel they've put in place, and I'd venture to guess they're taken advantage of a fair bit when it comes right down to it. Many of them just don't care about the details, outside of what committees they can get on, and what time their reservations are for the latest DC power spot.

    Sad but true.

    So many of them go to Washington with the best of intentions, only to get corrupted by the chase for power and prestige. That's why I truly believe limiting their time there would make a huge difference.

    If it didn't, what's the worst thing that could happen? We have a govt that functions like :censored2: and fails to get things accomplished? We go back to the old way and drop the single term limit? Sounds like we'd be back where we started either way, so I'm 100% willing to take that chance...

    ...getting them to vote to put them in place would be the hard part. It'd have to be a public referendum, because there's absolutely zero chance they're voting against their personal career interests.
  10. LarryBird

    LarryBird Well-Known Member

    No, it's homes, how I'm using it. As in, short for homeboy, homeslice, or homie - homes.

    Recognize, homes.
  11. BrownArmy

    BrownArmy Well-Known Member

    Overturn Citizens United, outlaw PAC’s, make a law that ex-Representatives cannot lobby the Federal Government until five years after they quit, term limits for Senators and Congressmen, 18 year staggered term limits for SC judges, a six-month limit before the election on campaigning for President, etc, etc.

    All good solutions that will never, ever happen.

    It’s a big ask for those in power to give up that power...
  12. cheryl

    cheryl I started this. Staff Member

    @Old Man Jingles resigned. He is welcome to come back to moderating, anytime.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Creative Creative x 1
    • List
  13. It will be fine

    It will be fine Well-Known Member

    So your ideal setup would be an elected puppet of his staff that wouldn’t have to worry about reelection. And this would improve things how?
  14. Brisket

    Brisket Well-Known Member


    Mike Holmes?
  15. LarryBird

    LarryBird Well-Known Member

    I'm only busting his chops...he seems to get fired up when those guys tell him he was fired from moderating because it gave him a breakdown.

    I certainly didn't expect him to give me an actual explanation for something I believed wasn't true to begin with, but I'm sure he appreciates you being his white knight in shining armor either way.

    He's an aight guy, even if we agree on absolutely nothing, for the most part.
  16. LarryBird

    LarryBird Well-Known Member

    Nah. Katie.dae1456b05bf1c0b7dd2466f4a23c181.jpgOr Joey Potter to those of you who look back at her days on Dawson's Creek fondly.

    She was a serious smokeshow back in the day's o' Dawson, not that she's lost much presently, as we can see above...

  17. LarryBird

    LarryBird Well-Known Member

    No, that's not my ideal setup, it's the setup we have now, where the elected officials campaign and raise funds for the next election, and the staffers do the bulk of the work.

    My ideal setup is one where they have a single term though. Whether or not they choose to use that term to put their noses to the grindstone and make a difference will still be up to them, but it will be their only chance at it, either way.

    By your measure, this will ruin the congress because the staffers are the only ones who know what's going on. Using that same measure to look back, would that then mean all freshmen Reps and Senators are and have been useless in the past? I think we can definitively say that's untrue, so while the learning curve might be steep, I think this problem could be mitigated to an extent by staggering the election years to keep some experienced lawmakers in place while the new class is coming in, and with quality experienced staffers we've spoke of here already.

    We have nothing to lose by doing this.

    We're already burdened with ineffective lawmakers. Things in Washington are at a standstill and we've got two parties who refuse to work together because of past perceived slights, political hit jobs, differences of opinion on the core issues, etc. These wounds run deep too - the past 10 to 15 years have been to worst period in our congress' history, and it's not looking up.

    We can let this same story play out over another generation, or we can do something drastic to try to change the culture in DC. In my opinion, changing :censored2: up big time in Washington is the kick in the ass our country needs. You want to drain the swamp? Here you go. This is the way to really do it:
    Get behind the rhetoric - •••Drain That Swamp••• •••Drain That Swamp••• •••Drain That Swamp•••

    Let's truly MAGA!
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  18. LarryBird

    LarryBird Well-Known Member

    It works if you work it.
  19. BrownArmy

    BrownArmy Well-Known Member


    “Look, having nuclear—my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart —you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world—it’s true!—but when you’re a conservative Republican they try—oh, do they do a number—that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune—you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged—but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me—it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are (nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right—who would have thought?), but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners—now it used to be three, now it’s four—but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years—but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”

  20. LarryBird

    LarryBird Well-Known Member

    Seems about right for him.

    Rambling? Check.
    Incoherent? Check.
    Braggadocious? Check.
    Mentions his wealth? Check.
    Wharton? Check.
    Inflated sense of his own intelligence? Check.
    Talks about our enemies greatness? Check.

    He covered most of the usual bases there.