Vote or stfu

**Morningfrost** · 10-30-12, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Still a bad idea. 66% of the popular vote works better for me.

I could get behind something along the lines of requiring 66% or more of the popular vote. That would ensure that someone wasn't just being re-elected because of their party, because it would take people from the "other side" to keep them in office. That would ensure that the only ones able to stay after the first few terms would be the ones that were actually effective for their constituents.

~Morningfrost

**digital** · 10-30-12, 04:44 PM

Other than tarp, the regulation to regulate investing which hasn't helped do anything and the affordable health care act. Name another groundbreaking piece of legislation that got passed in the last 10 years that affects virtually the majority in the United States. Because honestly you won't be able to find one. Other than some miscellaneous and routine bullshit miniscule legislation. Our tax regulation needs overall, our military budget needs serious review, our national infrastructure needs hauling to say the least and quite a few other pressing matters. However because you have people worried about keeping power, income and status. The majority of the time shit doesn't get done.

Sent from my Motorola Photon Cannon!

**GReYVee** · 10-30-12, 04:50 PM

Being a leader is a duty not a career. I am all for extreme term limits in most offices of the government with some providing re-eligibility after X terms or years. This way a politician knows they have basically one shot at it, and with that I believe most would make the most of it.

I personally like the way George Carlin sees it, surely this is been posted a thousand times already. Though I'll be voting for a libertarian candidate in hopes that we'll see enough voter turn out to take 3rd parties more seriously next election. (Yeah I know this has been a pipe dream for many decades now)

**Fovezer** · 10-30-12, 06:29 PM

I still haven't heard a compelling argument for term limits. Not one. Basically it seems to boil down to "give new people a chance." Well you know what, we already have a procedure for that. It's called voting and primaries. Congresspeople and Congress itself are viewed in a unique manner. For the most part, people like their congresspeople, which is why they got elected and get reelected, but they hate the Congress as a whole. Term limits don't fix any problems that aren't already able to be fixed, what they are there for is to get rid of other people's representatives that you don't like. Term limits will only create more gridlock and make our Congress even slower and more inefficient by tossing out all the people who know what to do and putting in greenhorns, who have to figure out the system and everything.

**deathgodusmc** · 10-30-12, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

I still haven't heard a compelling argument for term limits. Not one. Basically it seems to boil down to "give new people a chance." Well you know what, we already have a procedure for that. It's called voting and primaries. Congresspeople and Congress itself are viewed in a unique manner. For the most part, people like their congresspeople, which is why they got elected and get reelected, but they hate the Congress as a whole. Term limits don't fix any problems that aren't already able to be fixed, what they are there for is to get rid of other people's representatives that you don't like. Term limits will only create more gridlock and make our Congress even slower and more inefficient by tossing out all the people who know what to do and putting in greenhorns, who have to figure out the system and everything.

You dont need anyone here to make a compelling argument. All you need is enough common sense to see what them serving for 20 years has accomplished.

**Fovezer** · 10-30-12, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

You dont need anyone here to make a compelling argument. All you need is enough common sense to see what them serving for 20 years has accomplished.

Like I said, I still haven't heard one compelling argument, but I wasn't ever expecting one from you, though.

**CivilWars** · 10-30-12, 06:53 PM

Just cap bribes, I mean campaign contributions, and corporate handouts and then you will have politicians doing it for the job instead of the paycheck. Problem solved.

**deathgodusmc** · 10-30-12, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Like I said, I still haven't heard one compelling argument, but I wasn't ever expecting one from you, though.

Once again though you are the only one sitting on that side of the fence. I'm going to take a guess on the reason you haven't heard a compelling argument. It might be because you put your fingers in your ears whenever someone is about to say something you disagree with.

**Fovezer** · 10-30-12, 06:59 PM

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Just cap bribes, I mean campaign contributions, and corporate handouts and then you will have politicians doing it for the job instead of the paycheck. Problem solved.

I wholeheartedly agree. I'd prefer publicly-financed, but I'd take this, too.

Originally Posted by deathgodusmc

Once again though you are the only one sitting on that side of the fence. I'm going to take a guess on the reason you haven't heard a compelling argument. It might be because you put your fingers in your ears whenever someone is about to say something you disagree with.

Uh, Civil is on my side of the fence on this one. And it doesn't change the fact that the only argument so far has been "we need new people and we don't want to have to vote them out!"

**Talkos** · 11-03-12, 10:52 AM

All that springs to my head after reading that is a mental image of a sad politician holding a sign with the words. "A Congressman is for life, not just for Christmas"