"Bad presidents happen to good people"

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: straightalker
Representative Katherine Harris (up for election this November for the Senate) says God chooses and installs our elected representatives.

Dear lord we need to clense to gene pool. Somebody gimmie an easy button to cause everyone like her to instantly die.

Tell me again, how are liberals better than fundamentalist Christians? This one wants lots of people to die.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Yeah because one opinion should be attributed to all Liberals. I'm a liberal and I'd rather just see Harris and any others who assisted in installing Bush into office when Gore won jailed.

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
In my view, it's the case that Al Gore did win the popular vote in Florida, and therefore the electoral vote in the United States, and George Bush's two terms are a violation of our democracy, both criminally and accidentally.

Liberals just can't accept facts.

Gore lost, plain and square.

By the standard that really should be the ONLY standard (popular vote) he should have won. When are we gonna freakin' change the constitution for this?!! The person with the most people voting for him/her should win. Plain and simple.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Too bad the Republicans of the first half of the century have pretty much nothing in common with the modern Republicans.

I think it is fair to say the same thing about Democrats, except maybe on social spending issues.

I wonder... if we study the rise in power of the TV news media and compare it to the tenor of politics in this country if we would see a correlation hmmm I think so.

Look at the tenor in Washington and look how it has gone down hill since the 1960s.
And with the creating of every new media outlet we have seen a "jump" in the venom we see out there. Vietnam and Nixon = satellite and "live" world wide news broadcasts. Carter and Reagan = cable news. Clinton impeachment = multiple cable news outlets. Bush and the hatred for him = rise in internet blogs etc. It is like the more news we have the more hatred it produces, very sad.

Does anyone else agree with this idea?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
In my view, it's the case that Al Gore did win the popular vote in Florida, and therefore the electoral vote in the United States, and George Bush's two terms are a violation of our democracy, both criminally and accidentally.

Liberals just can't accept facts.

Gore lost, plain and square.

By the standard that really should be the ONLY standard (popular vote) he should have won. When are we gonna freakin' change the constitution for this?!! The person with the most people voting for him/her should win. Plain and simple.

It is not going to happen.

The smaller states do not want to be either ignored and/or run roughshod by the bigger states.

When 10-12 states have the ability via population to dictate to the rest of the 40 states, that will not sit very well. Proportional representation via state may work (but the political parties will fight that).

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Too bad the Republicans of the first half of the century have pretty much nothing in common with the modern Republicans.

I think it is fair to say the same thing about Democrats, except maybe on social spending issues.

I wonder... if we study the rise in power of the TV news media and compare it to the tenor of politics in this country if we would see a correlation hmmm I think so.

Look at the tenor in Washington and look how it has gone down hill since the 1960s.
And with the creating of every new media outlet we have seen a "jump" in the venom we see out there. Vietnam and Nixon = satellite and "live" world wide news broadcasts. Carter and Reagan = cable news. Clinton impeachment = multiple cable news outlets. Bush and the hatred for him = rise in internet blogs etc. It is like the more news we have the more hatred it produces, very sad.

Does anyone else agree with this idea?

Well I'll say this. I think it's ridiculous that it takes ~15 million dollars to run for the Senate. This puts it out of the reach of normal people, the only way to get that kind of money is to sell your soul to an interest group or a group of interest groups. Therefore your entire term you are trying to fulfill your obligations to them and are focused on raising enough money to run again.

So instead of acting in their constiuents best interests, they are looking out for themselves, "How do I keep this cushy job where I make 5 times the average american and work only a handful of days a year?"

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Bird222

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
In my view, it's the case that Al Gore did win the popular vote in Florida, and therefore the electoral vote in the United States, and George Bush's two terms are a violation of our democracy, both criminally and accidentally.

Liberals just can't accept facts.

Gore lost, plain and square.

By the standard that really should be the ONLY standard (popular vote) he should have won. When are we gonna freakin' change the constitution for this?!! The person with the most people voting for him/her should win. Plain and simple.

Perhaps you should study history and see why this system was created in the first place.

If we go to a straight popularity system then the only states that matter are Cali, Texas, New York, Florida and a few of the other top 10 states, the other 40 states become meaningless. More people live in the New York city metropolitan area than all but 3 states, one of which is New York. Our Presidential election would be fought in the top 25 largest cities and no place else.
US Metro areas
US cities by population
State Populations
Notice that the top 12 Metro areas have more people in them than 25 states, a candidate would be better off spending more time in one of those 12 cities than visiting half the states in the country.

 

[Bird222]

That's fine and good, but in my view the majority of people should rule on this issue.

Popular vote FTW.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Bird222
By the standard that really should be the ONLY standard (popular vote) he should have won. When are we gonna freakin' change the constitution for this?!! The person with the most people voting for him/her should win. Plain and simple.

It'll never get changed, because it's a horrible idea that will lead to the American Civil War: Redux.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: ayabe
Well I'll say this. I think it's ridiculous that it takes ~15 million dollars to run for the Senate. This puts it out of the reach of normal people, the only way to get that kind of money is to sell your soul to an interest group or a group of interest groups. Therefore your entire term you are trying to fulfill your obligations to them and are focused on raising enough money to run again.

So instead of acting in their constiuents best interests, they are looking out for themselves, "How do I keep this cushy job where I make 5 times the average american and work only a handful of days a year?"

I agree with point 1, too much time and effort is spent on keeping that power. You?ll never change the cost of getting elected though. A better way to keep them honest is a more open spending system. Less riders, easier to access lists of where the money goes. How about spending per district web sites, they would HATE that. Then again the two worst porkers in congress, Byrd and Stevens, get reelected year after year because they deliver. I want my new highway project, but your new highway project is just pork? works like that.

I won't complain about the amount of money they make since many of them could make that much in non-government jobs, especially the lawyers and Doctors in the groups. I will say that we should eliminate their nice pensions plan and make the pay into Social Security like everyone else. 2 years in congress should not equal lifetime payments.

 

[palehorse]

i get really nervous talking to people who derive their opinions on key issues from "news sources" like Bill Mahr... or Bill O'Reilly...

travel more. read more. learn more. do more... and then I might listen to your opinions on things...

GL.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Well I'll say this. I think it's ridiculous that it takes ~15 million dollars to run for the Senate. This puts it out of the reach of normal people, the only way to get that kind of money is to sell your soul to an interest group or a group of interest groups. Therefore your entire term you are trying to fulfill your obligations to them and are focused on raising enough money to run again.

So instead of acting in their constiuents best interests, they are looking out for themselves, "How do I keep this cushy job where I make 5 times the average american and work only a handful of days a year?"

I agree with point 1, too much time and effort is spent on keeping that power. You?ll never change the cost of getting elected though. A better way to keep them honest is a more open spending system. Less riders, easier to access lists of where the money goes. How about spending per district web sites, they would HATE that. Then again the two worst porkers in congress, Byrd and Stevens, get reelected year after year because they deliver. I want my new highway project, but your new highway project is just pork? works like that.

I won't complain about the amount of money they make since many of them could make that much in non-government jobs, especially the lawyers and Doctors in the groups. I will say that we should eliminate their nice pensions plan and make the pay into Social Security like everyone else. 2 years in congress should not equal lifetime payments.

To add to that - lobbyists should be banned, all gifts from lobbyists should be banned. No more corporate plane rides, golf trips, whatever else. If a Congressman wants to know about an issue, he needs to do his own research, not to rely on a lobbyist to "educate" him on the issue.


Impose two term limits for the House and Senate, change the members of the House to 4 year tenures.

Riders should be eliminated, nothing that doesn't directly involve the bill can be included. All voting, all amendments need to be completely transparent. It should also be mandatory that every member of Congress votes on every bill that comes to the floor.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Well I'll say this. I think it's ridiculous that it takes ~15 million dollars to run for the Senate. This puts it out of the reach of normal people, the only way to get that kind of money is to sell your soul to an interest group or a group of interest groups. Therefore your entire term you are trying to fulfill your obligations to them and are focused on raising enough money to run again.

So instead of acting in their constiuents best interests, they are looking out for themselves, "How do I keep this cushy job where I make 5 times the average american and work only a handful of days a year?"

I agree with point 1, too much time and effort is spent on keeping that power. You?ll never change the cost of getting elected though. A better way to keep them honest is a more open spending system. Less riders, easier to access lists of where the money goes. How about spending per district web sites, they would HATE that. Then again the two worst porkers in congress, Byrd and Stevens, get reelected year after year because they deliver. I want my new highway project, but your new highway project is just pork? works like that.

I won't complain about the amount of money they make since many of them could make that much in non-government jobs, especially the lawyers and Doctors in the groups. I will say that we should eliminate their nice pensions plan and make the pay into Social Security like everyone else. 2 years in congress should not equal lifetime payments.

To add to that - lobbyists should be banned, all gifts from lobbyists should be banned. No more corporate plane rides, golf trips, whatever else. If a Congressman wants to know about an issue, he needs to do his own research, not to rely on a lobbyist to "educate" him on the issue.

Impose two term limits for the House and Senate, change the members of the House to 4 year tenures.

Riders should be eliminated, nothing that doesn't directly involve the bill can be included. All voting, all amendments need to be completely transparent. It should also be mandatory that every member of Congress votes on every bill that comes to the floor.

I agree with everything that you just wrote. Sadly, though, it will never happen...

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: ayabe
Too bad the Republicans of the first half of the century have pretty much nothing in common with the modern Republicans.

I think it is fair to say the same thing about Democrats, except maybe on social spending issues.

I wonder... if we study the rise in power of the TV news media and compare it to the tenor of politics in this country if we would see a correlation hmmm I think so.

Look at the tenor in Washington and look how it has gone down hill since the 1960s.
And with the creating of every new media outlet we have seen a "jump" in the venom we see out there. Vietnam and Nixon = satellite and "live" world wide news broadcasts. Carter and Reagan = cable news. Clinton impeachment = multiple cable news outlets. Bush and the hatred for him = rise in internet blogs etc. It is like the more news we have the more hatred it produces, very sad.

Does anyone else agree with this idea?

There's more of a correlation to when Lee Atwater got into politics than what the media have to do with it. But, you're going to believe whatever you want in that purple polka-dot sky world of yours.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Yeah because one opinion should be attributed to all Liberals.

Yet it seems not only acceptable, but actually expected around here to paint all conservatives with the same broad brush. What's good for the goose...