Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 213
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    North Shore
    Posts
    10,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Did he say HOW? That's the part I can't figure out.
    Mexico will pay for it

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    31,225
    Quote Originally Posted by Kenny Powders View Post
    Mexico will pay for it
    Pay for getting money out of politics?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    14,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    We can't vote in good ones either. Term limits helps us get rid of career politicians.
    If we can't vote in good ones then the logic behind your desire to limit terms is not sound.

    What you are saying is people who are bad and don't know what they are doing are going to be more effective at governing then people who are bad but at least understand what they are doing.

    And you didn't address the main point I made... There are states with term limits... they are not in better shape than states without term limits. I would prefer to try something that I at least don't know if it will work.. rather than something that has been tried... A BUNCH... and we know it does diddly.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    14,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Did he say HOW? That's the part I can't figure out.
    One of the big problems with this is the supreme court just got stacked in favor of business and interests that believe Money = Speech and corporations= people ... ipso facto, presto chango.... any laws if you manage to pass them to limit money in elections (beyond the limit on personal contributions) will be challenged and declared unconstitutional.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,731
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Did he say HOW? That's the part I can't figure out.
    Royal decree, provided that he could in any way say he believes that it has some interest to the country and some interest to himself.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    31,225
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    If we can't vote in good ones then the logic behind your desire to limit terms is not sound.

    What you are saying is people who are bad and don't know what they are doing are going to be more effective at governing then people who are bad but at least understand what they are doing.

    And you didn't address the main point I made... There are states with term limits... they are not in better shape than states without term limits. I would prefer to try something that I at least don't know if it will work.. rather than something that has been tried... A BUNCH... and we know it does diddly.
    No, what I'm saying is that people who are career politicians are better investments for people who want to use money to control our country/laws. If they had a short time in power then they would not be worth the money people now consider as long term investments in "owning" politicians.

    State level term limits is not really applicable since the states are all run so differently.

    Why do you like career politicians?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    31,225
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    One of the big problems with this is the supreme court just got stacked in favor of business and interests that believe Money = Speech and corporations= people ... ipso facto, presto chango.... any laws if you manage to pass them to limit money in elections (beyond the limit on personal contributions) will be challenged and declared unconstitutional.
    Citizens United happened because business was engaging in political speech, they were challenged, and the supreme court determined they couldn't restrict business from making politically charged decisions. The decision protected liberally run businesses' ability to make decisions they wanted to make ... like not selling products that were conservative.

    To challenge CU someone is going to have to come up with a new argument against it, or amend the constitution.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    44,859
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Citizens United happened because business was engaging in political speech, they were challenged, and the supreme court determined they couldn't restrict business from making politically charged decisions. The decision protected liberally run businesses' ability to make decisions they wanted to make ... like not selling products that were conservative.

    To challenge CU someone is going to have to come up with a new argument against it, or amend the constitution.

    I don't get it. Sounds like you are saying someone was going to force Joe's Department Store to sell MAGA hats.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    14,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    No, what I'm saying is that people who are career politicians are better investments for people who want to use money to control our country/laws. If they had a short time in power then they would not be worth the money people now consider as long term investments in "owning" politicians.

    State level term limits is not really applicable since the states are all run so differently.

    Why do you like career politicians?
    The non-career politicians will still need money to get in (possibly more)... and might not even be less aware of when they are manipulated.

    Your explanation of why term limits in the states don't matter is some weak ********. What about state government is so different (It's driven by special interests and money trying to get politicians to write laws in their favor right?)

    I don't care if they are career or not... just that they are good politicians.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    31,225
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    The non-career politicians will still need money to get in (possibly more)... and might not even be less aware of when they are manipulated.

    Your explanation of why term limits in the states don't matter is some weak ********. What about state government is so different (It's driven by special interests and money trying to get politicians to write laws in their favor right?)

    I don't care if they are career or not... just that they are good politicians.
    My state level term limits explanation was just that saying it doesn't seem to work at the state level isn't really proof of anything either.

    Ideally we'd be able to get all money out of politics. If we could solve the free speech aspect then I think government sponsored elections make sense, and then all it would take would be getting a qualifying number of signatures. We could have government purchased TV time for debates that were equal for all candidates, etc. That could apply to every election at every level. IF we can solve the free speech issue.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Where the smog meets the shore
    Posts
    48,640
    Yes they are.

    No trust whatsoever just as Ive had for years.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    14,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    My state level term limits explanation was just that saying it doesn't seem to work at the state level isn't really proof of anything either.

    Ideally we'd be able to get all money out of politics. If we could solve the free speech aspect then I think government sponsored elections make sense, and then all it would take would be getting a qualifying number of signatures. We could have government purchased TV time for debates that were equal for all candidates, etc. That could apply to every election at every level. IF we can solve the free speech issue.
    So something working or not working is not evidence that they would work or not work in a similar situation?

    OK. How do you make any decision about anything that is any way different than any other decision you have ever had to make?

    I mean: \_(ツ)_/

    Yes Money out... we've had that standing to bring suit + precedence conversation before... I'm pretty sure the court can hear roughly the same case if they wanted to (so long as some place passed the law and someone sued) regardless of how they ruled before.
    Last edited by flips333; 02-19-2020 at 08:36 PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    31,225
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    So something working or not working is not evidence that they would work or not work in a similar situation?

    OK. How do you make any decision about anything that is any way different than any other decision you have ever had to make?

    I mean: \_(ツ)_/

    Yes Money out... we've had that standing to bring suit + precedence conversation before... I'm pretty sure the court can hear roughly the same case if they wanted to (so long as some place passed the law and someone sued) regardless of how they ruled before.
    I don't assume something working in a different system in a small scale means it will work the same in a different system in a larger scale. Can you prove causation with term limits and a state being poorly run? How do you know it's not just that the state is poorly run? What about the states without term limits that are poorly run?

    Citizens United is not the only issue with money in politics by a long shot. Bloomberg isn't making use of it, he's just got a **** ton of money. Also private citizens/groups could spend whatever they wanted promoting politicians and causes before Citizens United. That's why I said it was a free speech issue. If we want to get the money out we have to keep people from spending money to promote political positions/politicians and I have no idea how that can possibly happen.

    Term limits and increasing the house until there is one rep per 50k people will certainly massively de-value the positions while massively escalating the amount of money needed to push a law through when the people don't want it.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    14,088
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I don't assume something working in a different system in a small scale means it will work the same in a different system in a larger scale. Can you prove causation with term limits and a state being poorly run? How do you know it's not just that the state is poorly run? What about the states without term limits that are poorly run?

    Citizens United is not the only issue with money in politics by a long shot. Bloomberg isn't making use of it, he's just got a **** ton of money. Also private citizens/groups could spend whatever they wanted promoting politicians and causes before Citizens United. That's why I said it was a free speech issue. If we want to get the money out we have to keep people from spending money to promote political positions/politicians and I have no idea how that can possibly happen.

    Term limits and increasing the house until there is one rep per 50k people will certainly massively de-value the positions while massively escalating the amount of money needed to push a law through when the people don't want it.
    Evidence is evidence. Something that works in california might not work in alabama... and vice versa... But it's still evidence. People do pilot studies all the time. Let's try X in one of our plants before we do it nationally. Sure it failing or succeeding doesn't guarantee success or failure nationally... but it's clearly better evidence than pontificating about what one thinks will happen which literally is not evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    31,225
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    Evidence is evidence. Something that works in california might not work in alabama... and vice versa... But it's still evidence. People do pilot studies all the time. Let's try X in one of our plants before we do it nationally. Sure it failing or succeeding doesn't guarantee success or failure nationally... but it's clearly better evidence than pontificating about what one thinks will happen which literally is not evidence.
    Everything is evidence. Proof is much harder. And Alabama failing as a state and having term limits may be completely unconnected. A flat tire may slow your car down, but if you have no gas (or energy) the flat tire is not the actual cause of your car not taking you anywhere.

Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •