Your Favorite Politician to Dislike

[japantiger 4,051]

I dislike anyone that calls themselves a politician or thinks it's a profession...this is the crux of our issues.   We need temporary public servants...not politicians.  It is beyond belief that someone can go into politics and come out worth tens of millions of dollars.  That is prima-facia evidence of corruption....term limits are appropriate for all members of the legislative and judicial branch...

[homersapien 11,396]

22 minutes ago, japantiger said:

I dislike anyone that calls themselves a politician or thinks it's a profession...this is the crux of our issues.   We need temporary public servants...not politicians.  It is beyond belief that someone can go into politics and come out worth tens of millions of dollars.  That is prima-facia evidence of corruption....term limits are appropriate for all members of the legislative and judicial branch...

But, if money = speech, then the money has spoken. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

23 minutes ago, japantiger said:

I dislike anyone that calls themselves a politician or thinks it's a profession...this is the crux of our issues.   We need temporary public servants...not politicians.  It is beyond belief that someone can go into politics and come out worth tens of millions of dollars.  That is prima-facia evidence of corruption....term limits are appropriate for all members of the legislative and judicial branch...

I agree with you here except the part about term limits for the judicial branch.  By putting term limits there, you actually encourage more a politicized approach to a branch that is meant to have autonomy and be able to work without fear of being removed based on time or political ideology.  

[homersapien 11,396]

27 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Awww, I was hoping for some specific reasons why the following is valid:

The gleaming irrelevancy of your remarks is blinding. 

You have utterly missed the essence of the discussion. The validity [or lack thereof - choose one or the other, it makes no difference in this context] of Salty's point is not the issue. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Awww, I was hoping for some specific reasons why the following is valid:

The gleaming irrelevancy of your remarks is blinding. 

You have utterly missed the essence of the discussion. The validity [or lack thereof - choose one or the other, it makes no difference in this context] of Salty's point is not the issue. 

I couldn't tell. 

[japantiger 4,051]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

But, if money = speech, then the money has spoken. 

My comment is related to individuals enriching themselves on the public trough...the implication of your response it that you are saying bribery is acceptable political speech .... 

[japantiger 4,051]

16 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

I agree with you here except the part about term limits for the judicial branch.  By putting term limits there, you actually encourage more a politicized approach to a branch that is meant to have autonomy and be able to work without fear of being removed based on time or political ideology.  

You have read the comments of Kagan and Ginsburg haven't you....their open and direct disdain of the duly elected president).  You just watched the Kavanaugh circus sponsored by 3 of the current 2020 Democrat frontrunners (#Spartacus, #HeelsupHarris and #1/1024thnativeamerican) and then enraged democrats saying they would impeach him and investigate him as soon as they resumed power?  I think that "politicized" ship has sailed.  Limiting terms ensures a rouge judge intent on ignoring the constitution can only do so much damage.  I would also like to see an Article 5 convention and put the unaccountable judgeships genie back in the bottle.  We need more accountability to the people; not less.  

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 minutes ago, japantiger said:

You have read the comments of Kagan and Ginsburg haven't you....their open and direct disdain of the duly elected president).  You just watched the Kavanaugh circus sponsored by 3 of the current 2020 Democrat frontrunners (#Spartacus, #HeelsupHarris and #1/1024thnativeamerican) and then enraged democrats saying they would impeach him and investigate him as soon as they resumed power?  I think that "politicized" ship has sailed.  Limiting terms ensures a rouge judge intent on ignoring the constitution can only do so much damage.  I would also like to see an Article 5 convention and put the unaccountable judgeships genie back in the bottle.  We need more accountability to the people; not less.  

Constantly rotating judges as confirmed by who is in congressional power at the time only leads to judgements that will support those in Congress.  Lifetime appointments allow for judicial independence and forces Congress to make laws that can pass muster for years and across the ideological spectrum.  You're essentially advocating for the judicial branch to become a rubber stamp for whoever is in power at the time.  The only way this really works is if a judge's time is 10-15 years so that multiple elections will take place during their span.

[homersapien 11,396]

23 hours ago, japantiger said:

My comment is related to individuals enriching themselves on the public trough...the implication of your response it that you are saying bribery is acceptable political speech .... 

That's close enough. Only it's called "political contributions" instead of bribery.

My point is that money has become institutionalized in our political system and will remain so as long as "Citizens United" is the law of the land. While politicians from both parties take advantage, it's the Republican-appointed judges who are most responsible for institutionalizing the influence of money in our political system.

To place the blame on individual responses to such a system is misplaced in terms of fixing it.  You have to play the game as it is, or drop out by losing the next election and let someone else do it.  Regardless, money is the lifeblood of the system. 

[homersapien 11,396]

31 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I couldn't tell. 

Neither could I.

[homersapien 11,396]

7 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Constantly rotating judges as confirmed by who is in congressional power at the time only leads to judgements that will support those in Congress.  Lifetime appointments allow for judicial independence and forces Congress to make laws that can pass muster for years and across the ideological spectrum.  You're essentially advocating for the judicial branch to become a rubber stamp for whoever is in power at the time.  The only way this really works is if a judge's time is 10-15 years so that multiple elections will take place during their span.

Excellent points.  Term limits for judges clearly has the potential for unintended consequences. 

 

[Zeek 16,658]

Chuck Schumer is such a sleazy and hypocritical tool bag. Nancy Pelosi would be high on my list but she just mumbles gibberish like a crazy person and for some reason they refuse to replace her. These two are not the faces that you should want representing a party. I've always liked Paul Ryan but I think he took a job no one wanted at one of the most difficult times in recent history. Maxine Waters should be removed from her position.

That being said, I'm not a fan of Trump and cocaine Mitch representing Republicans. I think most would agree those four aren't the best people we have in this country to represent us. Neal Dunn, now this is a more local gripe, is a snake who will say or do anything to stay in office. He has accomplished absolutely nothing for the Panhandle.

Republicans I like Ben Sasse (blunt and honest guy really focuses on the facts and doesn't seem to play many games), Lindsey Graham 2.0 (he has really found his groove), Rand Paul (I don't agree with him much but I think he is genuine), Marco Rubio, Martha Roby, Dan Crenshaw, Sean Duffy, DeSantis, and Tim Scott

Democrats I like Gillibrand, Manchin, Soto, Gabbard, Cummings, Lamb(sleeper for a future presidential run much further in the future), and Kind.

 

[homersapien 11,396]

You don't see the practical and moral difference between an illegal immigrant who was brought into this country decades ago as a child and has grown up to become a law-abiding contributing member of our society and someone who just illegally entered as an adult?

You think we should throw the DACA people out instead of offering them a clear and legal path to earn citizenship?

[channonc 466]

3 hours ago, japantiger said:

I dislike anyone that calls themselves a politician or thinks it's a profession...this is the crux of our issues.   We need temporary public servants...not politicians.  It is beyond belief that someone can go into politics and come out worth tens of millions of dollars.  That is prima-facia evidence of corruption....term limits are appropriate for all members of the legislative and judicial branch...

We have term limits now. It's called the voting booth.

[japantiger 4,051]

5 minutes ago, channonc said:

We have term limits now. It's called the voting booth.

Then let's remove term limits on the presidency.

[japantiger 4,051]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's close enough. Only it's called "political contributions" instead of bribery.

My point is that money has become institutionalized in our political system and will remain so as long as "Citizens United" is the law of the land. While politicians from both parties take advantage, it's the Republican-appointed judges who are most responsible for institutionalizing the influence of money in our political system.

To place the blame on individual responses to such a system is misplaced in terms of fixing it.  You have to play the game as it is, or drop out and let someone else do it by losing the next election.

Democrats raise and spend more money on political campaigns.. you should be thanking those R judges for free speech.....blaming free speech for politicians suckling at the great whore is absurd....it's simple; the less time someone can spend in DC the less they can **** it up for us.  Not much harder to understand than that.   

I think the capital should be moved to Lebanon Kansas; DC should be imploded;  legislators should live in trailers for only 3 months every 2 years while the legislative (a shortened legislative) session happens; and they should have to file expense reports for their living expenses that are capped like most private companies do; we should go back to senators appointed by states legislators vs election; and they should be paid no salary....public servants only.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Constantly rotating judges as confirmed by who is in congressional power at the time only leads to judgements that will support those in Congress.  Lifetime appointments allow for judicial independence and forces Congress to make laws that can pass muster for years and across the ideological spectrum.  You're essentially advocating for the judicial branch to become a rubber stamp for whoever is in power at the time.  The only way this really works is if a judge's time is 10-15 years so that multiple elections will take place during their span.

Plus, the Framers of the Constitution implicitly established lifetime appointments for Federal Judges in Article III. To undue it would necessarily require an Amendment.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

[japantiger 4,051]

59 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Plus, the Framers of the Constitution implicitly established lifetime appointments for Federal Judges in Article III. To undue it would necessarily require an Amendment.

Yes, exactly.  All in .... do a complete Article 5 convention.

• Put more boundaries around what judges can do .... such as any jackass innferior court can't overturn legislation, etc.
• term limits, go back to Senators being accountable to the State legislators and governor
• cut legislative sessions...move the capital...etc....eliminate departments, etc....

 

Fed Gov't is too damn big.  If it's really worth doing; the states will do it.

•  

[AUloggerhead 2,244]

16 hours ago, japantiger said:

Yes, exactly.  All in .... do a complete Article 5 convention.

• Put more boundaries around what judges can do .... such as any jackass innferior court can't overturn legislation, etc.
• term limits, go back to Senators being accountable to the State legislators and governor
• cut legislative sessions...move the capital...etc....eliminate departments, etc....

 

Fed Gov't is too damn big.  If it's really worth doing; the states will do it.

•  

I'd also like to see real campaign finance reform be addressed in an Article V convention.  To wit: ban the practice of "war chests."  Any candidate for office would be allowed to raise as much money as they're able to for a particular office with the provision that they could only spend it on that campaign and that campaign only.  No keeping it for later use.  Any funds collected and not used ... would automatically be sent to the US Treasury to retire the national  debt.  

[alexava 6,973]

22 hours ago, japantiger said:

I dislike anyone that calls themselves a politician or thinks it's a profession...this is the crux of our issues.   We need temporary public servants...not politicians.  It is beyond belief that someone can go into politics and come out worth tens of millions of dollars.  That is prima-facia evidence of corruption....term limits are appropriate for all members of the legislative and judicial branch...

What about guys that go in as hustling billionaires with several bankruptcies and civil suits on record. Then don’t divest from business here or abroad and actively lobby our adversaries while campaigning. Give themselves huge tax cuts further enriching themselves as they intentionally divide the country. All while you’re people who helped you get there are methodically being convicted of financial crimes , some with hidden international interests? I guess that’s ok as long as it’s not a “ politician “

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

1 hour ago, alexava said:

What about guys that go in as hustling billionaires with several bankruptcies and civil suits on record. Then don’t divest from business here or abroad and actively lobby our adversaries while campaigning. Give themselves huge tax cuts further enriching themselves as they intentionally divide the country. All while you’re people who helped you get there are methodically being convicted of financial crimes , some with hidden international interests? I guess that’s ok as long as it’s not a “ politician “

There goes a "what about."

[homersapien 11,396]

20 hours ago, japantiger said:

Democrats raise and spend more money on political campaigns.. you should be thanking those R judges for free speech.....blaming free speech for politicians suckling at the great whore is absurd....it's simple; the less time someone can spend in DC the less they can **** it up for us.  Not much harder to understand than that.   

I think the capital should be moved to Lebanon Kansas; DC should be imploded;  legislators should live in trailers for only 3 months every 2 years while the legislative (a shortened legislative) session happens; and they should have to file expense reports for their living expenses that are capped like most private companies do; we should go back to senators appointed by states legislators vs election; and they should be paid no salary....public servants only.

Of course Democrats raise a lot of money. The problem is with the need to raise so much money in order to compete.

Protecting money as free speech (Citizens United...) - which prevents laws limiting campaign spending - is why.

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 2/1/2019 at 4:28 PM, japantiger said:

Yes, exactly.  All in .... do a complete Article 5 convention.

• Put more boundaries around what judges can do .... such as any jackass innferior court can't overturn legislation, etc.
• term limits, go back to Senators being accountable to the State legislators and governor
• cut legislative sessions...move the capital...etc....eliminate departments, etc....

 

Fed Gov't is too damn big.  If it's really worth doing; the states will do it.

•  

I don't know that a Constitutional overhaul is necessary to place more boundaries around judicial power. I would say that the Constitution, as it is written now, is sufficient to do just that - which includes using Article 5. Maybe I am confused as to what you mean by "Article 5 convention".

The problem is, over recent years, some Justices on the Supreme Court have drifted back to the "Lochner  reasoning" area, and the principle has resurfaced that federal judges, notably those sitting on the Supreme Court, have the authority to select which unenumerated rights rank as "fundamental." (see Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell v. Hodges, etc.) Thereby, they take into their own hands, matters that properly should be and traditionally have been left to the democratic process. At least that is the area where I see an overarching problem - the rise of substantive due process - namely that there are some rights, so fundamental, no amount of process can deprive a person of that right. In turn - and this where the connection to your point is made - this perception is often what a majority of 5 will appeal to in overturning legislation (at least in the cases "deemed worthy to set afoot the national stage"). This is not to say that the notion of fundamental rights within the Constitution should be disavowed, but the Court needs to avoid repeating errors of the past when it converted personal preferences into constitutional mandates.

The first case where you see substantive due process being applied is Dred Scott, when the Court invalidated the Missouri Compromise on the ground that legislation restricting the institution of slavery violated the implied rights of slaveholders. While Dred Scott's holding was overruled on the battlegrounds of the Civil War and by constitutional amendment subsequent to the Appomattox, its approach to the Due Process Clause is still utilized. What endured, and has surfaced in recent years, is the idea that policy determinations can be considered and determined by a "select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine." 

[japantiger 4,051]

3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I don't know that a Constitutional overhaul is necessary to place more boundaries around judicial power. I would say that the Constitution, as it is written now, is sufficient to do just that - which includes using Article 5. Maybe I am confused as to what you mean by "Article 5 convention".

The problem is, over recent years, some Justices on the Supreme Court have drifted back to the "Lochner  reasoning" area, and the principle has resurfaced that federal judges, notably those sitting on the Supreme Court, have the authority to select which unenumerated rights rank as "fundamental." (see Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas, Obergefell v. Hodges, etc.) Thereby, they take into their own hands, matters that properly should be and traditionally have been left to the democratic process. At least that is the area where I see an overarching problem - the rise of substantive due process - namely that there are some rights, so fundamental, no amount of process can deprive a person of that right. In turn - and this where the connection to your point is made - this perception is often what a majority of 5 will appeal to in overturning legislation (at least in the cases "deemed worthy to set afoot the national stage"). This is not to say that the notion of fundamental rights within the Constitution should be disavowed, but the Court needs to avoid repeating errors of the past when it converted personal preferences into constitutional mandates.

The first case where you see substantive due process being applied is Dred Scott, when the Court invalidated the Missouri Compromise on the ground that legislation restricting the institution of slavery violated the implied rights of slaveholders. While Dred Scott's holding was overruled on the battlegrounds of the Civil War and by constitutional amendment subsequent to the Appomattox, its approach to the Due Process Clause is still utilized. What endured, and has surfaced in recent years, is the idea that policy determinations can be considered and determined by a "select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine." 

A convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also called an Article V Convention or amendments convention, called for by two-thirds (currently 34) of the state legislatures, is one of two processes authorized by Article Five of the United States Constitution whereby the United States Constitution may be altered. Amendments may also be proposed by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.^[1]

 

^{You have a new constitutional convention....}