Victory Tastes Sour

[ivwshane]

A legislative body of over 3,000 members is too much. Some would see their representation more influential. I think many more would see their representation ignored. It's just too many. In my opinion.

You don't even vote so your opinion means jack shit no matter how few or many more congressmen there are

 

[irishScott]

Actually it tastes awesome.

 

[Jaskalas]

Some of the things you list is precisely why I don't bother to vote and don't care about election results. Money rules all, our current system is is broken and as long as that fact remains true who gets elected makes almost no difference as they are all doing the bidding of the donors that got them there.

Need campaign finance reform to require that contributions must originate from within the district. No outside money. Corporation wants to fund you? Their HQ better be in your district. Their employees better live there, and able to vote for you.

 

[Jaskalas]

If we want anything to really change, we have to have term limits. Period, end of story. A huge majority of politicians have lost touch with the people they nominally represent after four to six years in D.C.

I've generally been opposed to limiting voter's choice. If you like a guy, why not keep him in office? Then there's Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell. That's a heck of an argument in favor of term limits.

I remain conflicted on this.

 

[werepossum]

I've generally been opposed to limiting voter's choice. If you like a guy, why not keep him in office? Then there's Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell. That's a heck of an argument in favor of term limits.

I remain conflicted on this.

An even better example is Roberts, who just handily won re-election. The guy's "residence" is basically a friend's recliner.

 

[Brainonska511]

I've generally been opposed to limiting voter's choice. If you like a guy, why not keep him in office? Then there's Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell. That's a heck of an argument in favor of term limits.

I remain conflicted on this.

There is some merit to having no term limits. Some benefits can come from having a rep with legislative experience - knowing how to craft laws, use the rules to push their legislation through, etc...

Removing money from the equation, so we don't have reps that have to fund-raise as a full time job, would probably go a long way towards improving the representative-ness of our candidates.

An even better example is Roberts, who just handily won re-election. The guy's "residence" is basically a friend's recliner.

Roberts is total bs. He should never have been eligible to run in Kansas. At the very minimum, you should actually maintain a residence in the state you represent.

 

[werepossum]

There is some merit to having no term limits. Some benefits can come from having a rep with legislative experience - knowing how to craft laws, use the rules to push their legislation through, etc...

Removing money from the equation, so we don't have reps that have to fund-raise as a full time job, would probably go a long way towards improving the representative-ness of our candidates.


Roberts is total bs. He should never have been eligible to run in Kansas. At the very minimum, you should actually maintain a residence in the state you represent.

Roberts is merely symptomatic of the process. Politics is now a life career, and the object ain't to stay in Kansas.

 

[dmcowen674]

Republicans won, country is still screwed.

• How are we going to change that?

You know the answer begins with the letter R and ends with N but it is not Republican.

 

[ivwshane]

Need campaign finance reform to require that contributions must originate from within the district. No outside money. Corporation wants to fund you? Their HQ better be in your district. Their employees better live there, and able to vote for you.

That's an interesting idea. A fair one too!

 

[DucatiMonster696]

That's an interesting idea. A fair one too!

Its a bad idea that do nothing to remove money from the equation and would only serve to grant local unions a shit ton of power to pour money into elections.

 

[ivwshane]

Its a bad idea that do nothing to remove money from the equation and would only serve to grant local unions a shit ton of power to pour money into elections.

I see nothing wrong with local money being spent locally, regardless of who is spending it.

$3 million versus $50k campaigns, guess who won?

http://news.kron4.com/news/elections/tom-butt-appears-to-win-richmond-mayoral-race/

 

[feralkid]

Ugh. Political addicts are as bad as rabid sports fans.

Does anyone really give that much of a shit which gang of self-serving freaks has a majority this minute?

Outside of political hack nutbags throwing hissy-fits and pretending to be oppressed by a bunch of 100% imaginary drama, will anyone really notice any lick of difference in their lives based on which bunch of idiots has a majority in congress? Nope. Not one shred of difference any more than people that get all bent over which sports team wins or loses like it was some life or death thing.

Go outside. Take a breath. Live life. No one (sane) really gives a shit if corrupt Ds or spineless Rs have a temp majority. They're all shitbags. They ALL only want two things: money and power. They laugh and high five themselves that people fall for the sports team distraction of mostly meaningless political parties.


(By the way I don't mean anyone in this thread, I just mean in general- all of us, everyone's tendencies every few years to fall for the bullshit thinking their 'side' winning means anything other than another bit of distraction. I almost think the sides agree to change power every now and then before it goes too long and the team-cheerleaders realize "Hey, my 'team' is just another bunch of clueless shitbags, just like the other 'team'" Changing it up actually energizes the 'losing' side and keeps them from forgetting to properly worship their puppet-masters and root for victory -and donate CASH!- for the next big game.)

False equivalency is the crutch of the low-information voter.

 

[crashtech]

True and false have no meaning in the political arena. Win and lose is all there is.

 

[werepossum]

That's an interesting idea. A fair one too!

How in Hell would that be fair? The laws that govern my life are passed by Congress, of which my Congressman and Senators comprise less than 1%. If I have the means to sway the other elections, I certainly have legitimate cause, as my state's guys can vote exactly as I wish and Congress still squash me.

It's a bizarre view that says nude dancing is protected free speech but buying time for a political ad is not.

 

[dank69]

And how's that working out?

The longer a politician is in office, the less vulnerable he or she is to defeat. The less vulnerable to defeat is a politician, the less he or she needs to give a crap what you want or need.

How's that working out? We were able to defeat SOPA/PIPA because our congressmen feared for their jobs. It works out great when people actually get involved.

 

[KlokWyze]

Forgot to vote on the 4th, busy with so much stuff. No excuse I know, but my jobless, social security check receiving, puerto rican, poor, politically anti-poor, poorly educated, highly indebted (getting the iPhone 6 though!) friend actually voted for the first time of his life. He's very proud of his team.

 

[ivwshane]

How in Hell would that be fair? The laws that govern my life are passed by Congress, of which my Congressman and Senators comprise less than 1%. If I have the means to sway the other elections, I certainly have legitimate cause, as my state's guys can vote exactly as I wish and Congress still squash me.

It's a bizarre view that says nude dancing is protected free speech but buying time for a political ad is not.

I was clearly talking about local government.

 

[sm625]

The leadership of this country consists of dogged old men whose life ambition is the accumulation of power, whose contributors own mansions on three continents, and whose investments depend on bailing out the 1% while expecting the rest of the wealth to trickle down.

lol they dont expect that to happen. That's just a lie that was foisted upon the masses, nothing more than feelgood crap to make the victims feel better about being robbed. It's total horse puckey; there is no trickle down effect. They print money and give it to themselves and laugh all the way to the bank, and then keep laughing on their way from the bank to the golf course. And yes they're still laughing on their way to the frickin yacht club. And most of these morons who keep voting for George W J McRomneybama the 3rd actually bought that crap and they repeat it like idiot parrots. Raaaack! Trickle down economics! Raaaack! Trickle down economics!

You then ask, how do we change this? It will not change until each and every person who voted for George W J McRomneybama wakes up and realizes that they indeed have been scammed. People have to learn to see our real power structure. From the foundations and think tanks, through the universities to the corporations, all the way up to wall street and DC. It's the money. The power to create money, and control who gets it. It's always been this way. For some reason, creating a billion dollars out of thin air isnt looked at the same way as stealing a billion dollars. But it should be. People should be outraged that money is being stolen in the way that it is. The average family has seen their real income drop by roughly 10 percent in just a decade. People just dont see that as being the result of rampant criminal acts. But it is. And if people understood our financial system a little better, then they would. Not jsut money, but credit too. Then they would become angry enough to vote for the people who will put a stop to it, instead of the people who are "electable" and bla bla bla whatever the frickin corporate owned media says.