Gravedigger of American Democracy? - - Mitch McConnell.

#176
#176
remember when MM squeaked by a few years ago…these blowhards always pull it out in end
 
#177
#177
EasternVol said:
There's nothing to indicate term limits would dissuade hacks from running. Voter satisfaction should be a stronger incentive. See Madison Cawthorn as an example. He was young and inexperienced. Was he good?
Term limits wouldn't hinder PAC corruption, they'd just redistribute it. Where do you get that 97% figure? Often PACs will support a challenger if they don't like the incumbent.
Click to expand...
You are just wrong all over the place. Term limits would dissuade candidates whose primary interest was self-enrichment from running. Term limits would lead to more self-made people running for office. The vast majority of pork barrell spending is done by veteran incumbents.

https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/pacs-stick-with-incumbents/

The very first line :

"Political Action Committees (PACs) have one overriding mandate - get the most bang for their buck. To maximize their dollars, nearly all PACs - particularly those of business groups - give the overwhelming proportion of their campaign dollars to incumbents."

^^^ Shouldn't that make perfect sense?"

I can't believe some of the things that are argued on here. There is actually someone here who wants to argue that incumbents don't get the overwhelming support from PACS.
 
Last edited:
#179
#179
EasternVol said:
Established ineffectiveness of veteran congressmen? That's not real. Excluding illness of course.
Are AOC, Gaetz, MTG, Jayapal, and Boebert better than their seniors?
Do you know how committee leadership is apportioned?
Experienced Congresspersons, if competent, are much more beneficial for their constituents.
Click to expand...
You can find exceptions to everything .... Experirenced members of Congress ... tend to be career politicians, who are mostly just more experienced in serving themselves, rather than their constituents.
 
#182
#182
hog88 said:
I can't see how that would be legal.

Build dorms and mess halls for them to live in while in DC, limit them to 90 days in session per year (outside of emergency) pay them accordingly for 90 days of work (about $60K) with no pension or health care benefits. Limit campaign donations to in district (for house) and in state for Senate. Actually lets repeal the 17th amendment and go back to state legislatures electing senators.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be legal except I suppose with a constitutional amendment.
I'm fine with repeal of the 17th.
If we pay them frugally and don't control outside income they'll really prioritize their baksheesh.
 
#183
#183
BernardKingGOAT said:
The stupidity of Democrats in Tennessee is mind boggling. Regardless of the gerrymandering, there's no way Republicans would have a supermajority in this state if Democrats would just vote
Click to expand...
Are you saying that gerrymandering isn't a factor in how the state is currently configurated? If Republicans had their way, every black voter in the state would be in the same district.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#185
#185
BowlBrother85 said:
Ridiculous (in my opinion) ... but untested at the federal level.
Click to expand...

Unless you can prove incumbent candidates are less likely to support balanced budgets, decreased interventionist policies, or shrinking the federal government; then what do you believe we will solve here by simply replacing people faster?
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#187
#187
BowlBrother85 said:
You are just wrong all over the place. Term limits would dissuade candidates whose primary interest was self-enrichment from running. Term limits would lead to more self-made people running for office. The vast majority of pork barrell spending is done by veteran incumbents.

https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/pacs-stick-with-incumbents/

The very first line :

"Political Action Committees (PACs) have one overriding mandate - get the most bang for their buck. To maximize their dollars, nearly all PACs - particularly those of business groups - give the overwhelming proportion of their campaign dollars to incumbents."

^^^ Shouldn't that make perfect sense?"

I can't believe some of the things that are argued on here. There is actually someone here who wants to argue that incumbents don't get the overwhelming support from PACS.
Click to expand...
There's no evidence or logic to support your assertions. At this point you're just cheerleading. I'm open to new ideas. How exactly would term limits improve the quality of Congress?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BernardKingGOAT
#188
#188
BowlBrother85 said:
You are just wrong all over the place. Term limits would dissuade candidates whose primary interest was self-enrichment from running. Term limits would lead to more self-made people running for office. The vast majority of pork barrell spending is done by veteran incumbents.

https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/pacs-stick-with-incumbents/

The very first line :

"Political Action Committees (PACs) have one overriding mandate - get the most bang for their buck. To maximize their dollars, nearly all PACs - particularly those of business groups - give the overwhelming proportion of their campaign dollars to incumbents."

^^^ Shouldn't that make perfect sense?"

I can't believe some of the things that are argued on here. There is actually someone here who wants to argue that incumbents don't get the overwhelming support from PACS.
Click to expand...
the overwhelming number of politicians are incumbents. So you aren't making as much of a distinction as you think.
 
#189
#189
LouderVol said:
the overwhelming number of politicians are incumbents. So you aren't making as much of a distinction as you think.
Click to expand...
In every election, you will either have an incumbent vs a challenger or you have two candidates seeking an office which is either being vacated or is already vacant.

My point is .... term limits rid the system of it's biggest fault - the self-enriching, career politician.
 
#190
#190
EasternVol said:
There's no evidence or logic to support your assertions. At this point you're just cheerleading. I'm open to new ideas. How exactly would term limits improve the quality of Congress?
Click to expand...
I have said this many times .. They will rid the system of the self-enriching career politician, reduce pork barrel spending, and the influence of lobbyists, as well as corruption.
 
#191
#191
Vol8188 said:
Unless you can prove incumbent candidates are less likely to support balanced budgets, decreased interventionist policies, or shrinking the federal government; then what do you believe we will solve here by simply replacing people faster?
Click to expand...
The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone who has never been fiscally responsible .... will continue to be irresponsible. It isn't just about "replacing people faster." It's about bringing in a better pool of candidates.
 
#192
#192
BowlBrother85 said:
The best indicator of future behavior is past behavior. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone who has never been fiscally responsible .... will continue to be irresponsible. It isn't just about "replacing people faster." It's about bringing in a better pool of candidates.
Click to expand...

Yet the newbies aren’t making anything happen on that front either. The idea that the problems with congress are related to term limits seems disconnected from reality
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and EasternVol
#193
#193
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, and with term limits, that money will just go to greener congressman and have no influence whatsoever. We did it boys!
Click to expand...
Who the hell cares if a candidate is "green?"

"Let's have nothing but 85 year olds in the Senate, who have been in the Senate for 42 years and blown holes in the deficit, voted for the Iraq War and overseen the 2008 financial crisis! Can I get a "HELL YEAH!" ???? We did it boys!!!!"
 
#194
#194
Vol8188 said:
Yet the newbies aren’t making anything happen on that front either. The idea that the problems with congress are related to term limits seems disconnected from reality
Click to expand...
You are disconnected from reality. It's too small of a segment at this point to make a difference. You are trying to say something has failed when it hasn't even been tested.
 
#195
#195
BowlBrother85 said:
Who the hell cares if a candidate is "green?"

"Let's have nothing but 85 year olds in the Senate, who have been in the Senate for 42 years and blown holes in the deficit, voted for the Iraq War and overseen the 2008 financial crisis! Can I get a "HELL YEAH!" ???? We did it boys!!!!"
Click to expand...

You're being so disengenuous. I don't like old politicians. I've been expressing this the last few pages of this thread. You're freaking out because I told you IDK what the answer is but that you can't be certain of what you're saying. Think about that. You're way off base here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#196
#196
n_huffhines said:
You're being so disengenuous. I don't like old politicians. I've been expressing this the last few pages of this thread. You're freaking out because I told you IDK what the answer is but that you can't be certain of what you're saying. Think about that. You're way off base here.
Click to expand...
Maybe I am ... and I like most of your posts. I really do.

However, you say something should be done about these 80-something year old Senators who can't do their jobs anymore ... and I'm sure we all agree that neither Dianne Feinstein or Mitch McConnell should still be in the United States Senate right now ... but you don't want to enact the only measure which will bring an end to this craziness. They won't retire, and their constituents have such a misguided sense of loyalty that they won't vote them out of office either. Feinstein is a sad sight right now. This should not have been allowed to happen.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top