What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

alfablue said:
Still, It would be interesting to ask for some real specifics about draining the swamp. Not some nebulous blame game over someone being lazy.
Click to expand...

The swamp is the money. Drain the money, drain the swamp. Do nothing about the money and all other actions will be futile.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

alfablue said:
Still, It would be interesting to ask for some real specifics about draining the swamp. Not some nebulous blame game over someone being lazy.
Click to expand...

I had an Uber driver in CT tell me that he thinks we should go back to the days when representatives and Senators served one term, then went back home and returned to private enterprise. No more consecutive terms.

Even in the 19th century, did that ever really happen? Or is it just some fantasy of "conservative libertarians"?
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I had an Uber driver in CT tell me that he thinks we should go back to the days when representatives and Senators served one term, then went back home and returned to private enterprise. No more consecutive terms.

Even in the 19th century, did that ever really happen? Or is it just some fantasy of "conservative libertarians"?
Click to expand...

I do know at one time Senators were appointed, not elected.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Russell Jaslow said:
I do know at one time Senators were appointed, not elected.
Click to expand...

Here it is:

Before the adoption of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, Senators were elected by the individual state legislatures. Problems with repeated vacant seats due to the inability of a legislature to elect senators, intrastate political struggles, and even bribery and intimidation had gradually led to a growing movement to amend the Constitution to allow for the direct election of senators.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I had an Uber driver in CT tell me that he thinks we should go back to the days when representatives and Senators served one term, then went back home and returned to private enterprise. No more consecutive terms.
Click to expand...

This is a TERRIBLE idea. The information and expertise deficit that legislators face against lobbyists is already enormous. This would make it even worse. It would also eliminate any ability of leadership to impose discipline on insane / stupid / malevolent Members, which would lead to an entire legislature of Steve Kings and Joe Bartons. Money would be the only factor deciding who won elections since the public referendum on an incumbent's votes -- the keystone of democracy -- would be cut off. Members elected by corporate lobbies would simply do their bidding and then retire to a highly lucrative reward for being bribed.
 
Last edited:
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

3 words for you - Publicly funded elections

No matter how good and well intentioned you are, it's almost a constant cycle of fundraising to hold onto your seat. That just naturally leads to gravitating towards whoever has the money - which for the most part are the lobbyists. For some it leads to outright corruption, but even for the best of them it leads to a slow corrosion of principles. Take all the money, corruption, fundraising, influence out of it by publicly funding elections. Everyone has the same amount, let's see what you do with it, like a salary cap in sports.

And it goes without saying that Citizens United needs to overturned as part of this change.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

E.J. Smith said:
3 words for you - Publicly funded elections

No matter how good and well intentioned you are, it's almost a constant cycle of fundraising to hold onto your seat. That just naturally leads to gravitating towards whoever has the money - which for the most part are the lobbyists. For some it leads to outright corruption, but even for the best of them it leads to a slow corrosion of principles. Take all the money, corruption, fundraising, influence out of it by publicly funding elections. Everyone has the same amount, let's see what you do with it, like a salary cap in sports.

And it goes without saying that Citizens United needs to overturned as part of this change.
Click to expand...

Yes. In addition, strict limits on all political spending for all purposes. Spending is not protected speech, you f-cking transparent criminals.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

And where are we going to get the money for that?
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

E.J. Smith said:
3 words for you - Publicly funded elections

No matter how good and well intentioned you are, it's almost a constant cycle of fundraising to hold onto your seat. That just naturally leads to gravitating towards whoever has the money - which for the most part are the lobbyists. For some it leads to outright corruption, but even for the best of them it leads to a slow corrosion of principles. Take all the money, corruption, fundraising, influence out of it by publicly funding elections. Everyone has the same amount, let's see what you do with it, like a salary cap in sports.

And it goes without saying that Citizens United needs to overturned as part of this change.
Click to expand...

That's great, but Libs/Dems/whatever just blew their best chance to actually get Citizens United overturned when they p !ssed away a SCOTUS seat because of e-mails or something. :rolleyes: I'm having a hard time advocating for an idea even if I agree with it when likeminded supporters are so willing to cut off their nose to spite their faces. If Chump gets once more court pick Citizens United is permanent as opposed to already on the way out which was within our power to achieve a short time ago.
 
Re: POTUS 45.17 - Section 4 of Amendment 25

Rover said:
That's great, but Libs/Dems/whatever just blew their best chance to actually get Citizens United overturned when they p !ssed away a SCOTUS seat because of kneejerk defense of a terrible candidate who happened to be wired into the power structure of the party. :rolleyes: I'm having a hard time advocating for an idea even if I agree with it when likeminded supporters are so willing to cut off their nose to spite their faces.
Click to expand...

Agree completely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top