There goes the filibuster

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by afchic

I still hold firm that if we the people are fed up, vote the bastards out, and eventually they will get the drift. Term limits are OUR responsibility as citizens of this nation, not the people we vote into Congress. To suggest otherwise means we are no longer democratic republic, but something else all together. I am not willing to accept that.

Herein is the problem.

In our political system, you do not need full support. You just need 50%+1 of those who vote. As soon as you figure out how to buy the loyalty of that number, you do not have to concern yourself with the rest. Then we have a tyranny of the majority.

You can put a 100% tax on the remaining 50%-1, and make them pay for it, or just print money till it is worth less than the paper it is printed on.

If half of the Representatives, or Senators vote for a bill, and the POTUS will sign it, or be overridden, it becomes law. Doesn't matter directly if it enjoys popular support or not. Voters tend to have short memories.

If less than half of the voters support a state amendment, like term limits, or it fails to pass the legislative approval process of the required number of states in the required period for a Constitutional Amendment, it fails.

As you noted, the voters have the power, and right now, they favor their reps (the majority of which are Dims) remaining in office for as long as they choose.

TR

[afchic]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Herein is the problem.

In our political system, you do not need full support. You just need 50%+1 of those who vote. As soon as you figure out how to buy the loyalty of that number, you do not have to concern yourself with the rest. Then we have a tyranny of the majority.

You can put a 100% tax on the remaining 50%-1, and make them pay for it, or just print money till it is worth less than the paper it is printed on.

If half of the Representatives, or Senators vote for a bill, and the POTUS will sign it, or be overridden, it becomes law. Doesn't matter directly if it enjoys popular support or not. Voters tend to have short memories.

If less than half of the voters support a state amendment, like term limits, or it fails to pass the legislative approval process of the required number of states in the required period for a Constitutional Amendment, it fails.

As you noted, the voters have the power, and right now, they favor their reps (the majority of which are Dims) remaining in office for as long as they choose.

TR

I wholeheartedly agree we are experiencing a tyranny of the majority. My hope is that a third party finally emerges that is capable of going up against the money making machines of both the dems and the republicans. IMO, we would then not need to talk about term limits, because there would be a viable alternative.

I believe forums such as this, are the type of grassroots effort needed to start a viable third party in this nation. I still contend that if McCain ran as an Independant, and chose Lieberman as his running mate, we would be in a different place than we are right now.

[nmap]

Originally Posted by afchic

To suggest otherwise means we are no longer democratic republic, but something else all together. I am not willing to accept that.

You clearly know a great deal more about the political situation than do I ... so, I'm asking to learn. Are we still in a democratic republic? Or are we, perhaps, in transition to something different?

[afchic]

Originally Posted by nmap

You clearly know a great deal more about the political situation than do I ... so, I'm asking to learn. Are we still in a democratic republic? Or are we, perhaps, in transition to something different?

Maybe it is just hope on my part that we are still a democratic republic. My fear is that without the emergence of a viable third party we will become more and more like many members of the EU. Whoever holds the most seats gets to choose the PM, so to speak.

This nation was founded upon we the people, not we the congress. I have hope that there are enough Americans out there that still believe WE should be the ones choosing the next POTUS, not big money lobbying firms, not the controlling party in the Senate or the House, and not the MSM. WE THE PEOPLE.

I think the next 2 years will be very telling, in where we as a nation will go. IF more moderates (on both sides of the aisle, and maybe even a third party)) are elected into Congress then I think we will stand firm on the path our founding fathers put us on.

If due to the political climate, more far left or far right individuals are elected, further polarizing the nation, I fear we are truly setting ourselves up for when Congress will be choosing the leader of this nation, and not we the people.

Just my thoughts.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by afchic

....I still contend that if McCain ran as an Independant, and chose Lieberman as his running mate, we would be in a different place than we are right now.

The Republican base was not all that hot on McCain to begin with. Those to the right of the base were the Ron Paul, Barr (gave NC to Obama), Keyes voters. None, maybe one, would have gone for the "Moderates" of McCain/Lieberman.

The left? Go for McCain/Lieberman over Obama? Not a chance. Too many stars in their eyes.

So you have the "moderates" in the middle. That would have been like herding cats. They could have pulled some of the middle votes but not enough to get elected. Might have flipped a state or two to the Republican Camp but that's about it.

Don't think McCain didn't do a little polling prior to picking Palin. I bet he ran a few polls asking about an Independent before he started putting away some Primary States. After that I'll bet he did some polling on McCain / Leiberman before picking Palin.

The middle don't have enough to get elected - just to be spoilers.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Pete

The Republican base was not all that hot on McCain to begin with. Those to the right of the base were the Ron Paul, Barr (gave NC to Obama), Keyes voters. None, maybe one, would have gone for the "Moderates" of McCain/Lieberman.

The left? Go for McCain/Lieberman over Obama? Not a chance. Too many stars in their eyes.

So you have the "moderates" in the middle. That would have been like herding cats. They could have pulled some of the middle votes but not enough to get elected. Might have flipped a state or two to the Republican Camp but that's about it.

Don't think McCain didn't do a little polling prior to picking Palin. I bet he ran a few polls asking about an Independent before he started putting away some Primary States. After that I'll bet he did some polling on McCain / Leiberman before picking Palin.

The middle don't have enough to get elected - just to be spoilers.

You make some very good points, and I concede that McCain probably would not have won, but still I wonder if it would have caused a few more on the left to vote for him because he isn't as radical as Obama and they like Lieberman, and a few more on the right, who were tired of Bush policies and didn't truly like McCain therefore they voted Obama, to vote for say Romney.

I suppose we could do all sorts of counter factuals, might be interesting.

My fear with the current administration is the middle is being further polarized. Those that consider themselves right of center, but can't stand Obama's spending being pushed into the far right because they feel it is the only way to counter him. Or those left of center who don't ascribe to the Rush Limbaughs or Sean Hannities of the world, and feel Obama is not getting a fair shake by the right, pushing them further left.

The next two years are going to be interesting.

[KClapp]

First, McCain was taking us to the same location as Obama. The rate of speed was the only difference.

Second, with your education and experience, I'm sure you can explain to me why we have term limits on the POTUS. And then, if you would, explain to me why those reasons do not apply to Congress.

Originally Posted by afchic

The next two years are going to be interesting.

I am afraid that is an understatement.

[jw74]

Originally Posted by afchic

My fear is that without the emergence of a viable third party we will become more and more like many members of the EU. Whoever holds the most seats gets to choose the PM, so to speak.

In our electoral system, a third party will never happen. There might be a new party that replaces the GOP, but because we have a winner take all process, it will always break down to two parties. everywhere that there is SMP (single member plurality) elections, it results in two large parties. In many countries, they have proportional representation which means if the green party or the libertarians get 5% of the vote, they get 5% of the seats in their parliament. I don't pretend to be smart enough to know which is better, but I can see that there will never be three strong parties in the US with the system as it is.

What I dont understand is your opposition to term limits? If we the people decide that they are an efficient way to limit the effects of corruption, then how is it un-democratic? I don't mean to dog-pile I just dont get the aversion to term limits or see how it is undemocratic

[afchic]

Originally Posted by jw74

In our electoral system, a third party will never happen. There might be a new party that replaces the GOP, but because we have a winner take all process, it will always break down to two parties. everywhere that there is SMP (single member plurality) elections, it results in two large parties. In many countries, they have proportional representation which means if the green party or the libertarians get 5% of the vote, they get 5% of the seats in their parliament. I don't pretend to be smart enough to know which is better, but I can see that there will never be three strong parties in the US with the system as it is.

What I dont understand is your opposition to term limits? If we the people decide that they are an efficient way to limit the effects of corruption, then how is it un-democratic? I don't mean to dog-pile I just dont get the aversion to term limits or see how it is undemocratic

I guess my feeling is that we shouldn't have to legislate term limits. We have the capability now, if we choose to use it. If people are truly serious about booting out the bastards that are screwing things up in Congress, then when re-election comes around, vote for the opposition party, regardless of your party affiliation. After a couple of times, even the current boneheads in Congress will begin to get the idea, that we better do what we said we would, because we aren't going to be here for very long.

It is WE THE PEOPLE that continue to keep these batards in power. You can scream about money, and special interests all you want, but we are the ones that vote for them. We are the ones that continue to give them an approval rating of below 20%, yet continue to re-elect them. Why, because even though everyone else's Congressman/Senator sucks, "ours" is okay. So if "ours" is okay, and is doing what his/her constituents want them to do, and show their approval by re-electing them, why is there a problem?

This all goes back to the old adddage of "all politics are local". Congressmen/women do not get elected into Congress by doing what is best for the country. They get elected/re-elected by doing what is best for their district, regardless of whether or not it is good for the country as a whole. I absolutely hate Nancy Pelosi, Diane Fienstein, and others of their ilk. But with that being said, they are doing the job the majority of their constituents sent them to Washington to do, and they are doing it well, or else they wouldn't continue to be re-elected. We may not like it, but unless you are a California voter or a San Fransisco voter, it really doesn't matter what we think.

Senators, have a bit more leeway, as they are not up for re-election as often.

I feel there is too much legislation already, on a variety of issues, where if the current laws were followed, there would be no need for new ones. Why legislate something that is already within our power? Deciding to use that power is our problem, IMO.

People say that the founders did not mean for Congress to be a full time job. Fine, I'll agree to that. If you don't want a full-time person in Congress, don't vote for the incumbant. There is always someone else to vote for. You just have to decide whether your top priority is term limits, or other issues. Doesn't make it an easy choice, but it is a choice none the less. Sometimes you don't get the luxury of a clear cut "good choice" vs. a clear cut "bad choice". Like I always tell my kids, just because you don't like the options doesn't mean you don't have a choice.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by KClapp

First, McCain was taking us to the same location as Obama. The rate of speed was the only difference.

Second, with your education and experience, I'm sure you can explain to me why we have term limits on the POTUS. And then, if you would, explain to me why those reasons do not apply to Congress.



I am afraid that is an understatement.

I don't agree with having term limits for POTUS. If the people of the United States continue to vote for the same guy over and over and over again, because he is doing a good job, so be it. They don't like the job he is doing, he gets voted out.

Obviously my viewpoint is not the only viewpoint. If enough Americans decide they are incapable of taking accountability for the number of terms someone serves, and decides term limits should be put into place via legislation, have a nut. Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

[KClapp]

Originally Posted by afchic

So if "ours" is okay, and is doing what his/her constituents want them to do, and show their approval by re-electing them, why is there a problem?

Because some of us aren't willing to compromise our ideals and beliefs to that extent, even if the precious majority want it. I believe we have a historical precident, with the Civil War, to help us understand where we are at on this. Also, if I might add an observation and statement of belief by a grizzled NCO, whom I happen to know:

The results of the polling in this country have told me everything that I need to know about half of my "fellow" countrymen.

They are now my enemies and I see zero difference between them and an AQ operative when it comes to changing this country for the worse.

It’s not about Obama anymore. It’s about a shift in how some Americans think about what America should be. In the end, this change in philosophy can only be settled with the bayonet.

But nasty things like revolution are best whispered in hushed tones in private and not splattered all over the internet, so we try to refrain from such crazy talk on these boards.

That is why there is a problem. And it is a very, very serious problem.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by KClapp

Because some of us aren't willing to compromise our ideals and beliefs to that extent, even if the precious majority want it. I believe we have a historical precident, with the Civil War, to help us understand where we are at on this. Also, if I might add an observation and statement of belief by a grizzled NCO, I happen to know:



That is why there is a problem. And it is a very, very serious problem.

I am sorry if you take my viewpoint to be a compromise of my ideals. I don't know you, and you don't know me. Guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

But I think my 15 years of active duty service pretty much speaks for my ideals and beliefs. I am sorry if you don't think the same.

[KClapp]

Originally Posted by afchic

I am sorry if you take my viewpoint to be a compromise of my ideals.

Negative, I was not questioning whether you personally were compromising your ideals. You asked why it was a problem, if all the current congress was doing was serving their dominant constituents, and I answered.

But I think my 15 years of active duty service pretty much speaks for my ideals and beliefs. I am sorry if you don't think the same.

I know too many whose beliefs and ideals run counter to mine, yet who have worn or currently wear the uniform of this nation's military or have served or currently serve in law enforcement. Having served in the military is not an absolute indicator of one's philosophical stand. In fact, anymore, it's not even a reasonably good indicator. When I entered active duty in 1974, half the guys in my basic/AIT indicated they were there because a judge told them 2 years in the military or do jail time. So, I hope you can understand why I don't assume anything about an individual's morals and ideals just because they wore a uniform.

[Defender968]

Originally Posted by afchic

I am sorry if you take my viewpoint to be a compromise of my ideals. I don't know you, and you don't know me. Guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

But I think my 15 years of active duty service pretty much speaks for my ideals and beliefs. I am sorry if you don't think the same.

afchic I do not doubt your motives or your patriotism, I do however disagree with your stand on this issue, and I think some of it has to do with not only where you are in life but where you have been, and let me explain what I mean.

You have served for the past 15 years in the AF, and while that service is important and should be respected, it also means that you have been surrounded with relatively intelligent people for the past 15 years, and while I don't know you, I do know the AF and if you followed the typical officer path you would have gone to college, graduated, gotten commissioned, and been in the AF since. Please feel free to correct me if I'm worng. This means to me that you have been surrounded your entire adult life by people who for the most part make good judgments, who have been trained to think relatively independently, and who are for the most part informed citizens who will act in the nation’s best interests. Now there is nothing wrong with any of that, but I would argue that you have likely not really been exposed to much of the other side of America. Your view IMO appears optimistic but not realistic.

Now let me preference this by saying I still believe that America is populated by many, many, honest, hard working, decent moral people, of every different background, race, religion, or creed etc, however America is also riddled with a great many victim minded, lazy, immoral, self-centered, law breaking people who's only goal is to get by, or get ahead if the government will do it for them. These people are only out for what is best for themselves, not what is best for the country, worse yet they are easily swayed by a clever marketing campaigns. Many proved their own biases by voting on the basis of skin color rather than on principles, morals, common sense, or even the issues. Add to this fact that for the first time in my life that I can remember over half of all Americans pay NO taxes, and I would argue that the majority of that 51% is made up of the above type of people. These people are not going to make good informed decisions on who should or should not be in office, as a matter of fact, they will more likely vote to keep anyone in office who will give them more free assistance so that they don't have to be troubled with a job.

Now while I agree with you that we SHOULDN'T have to legislate term limits, the reality of the situation is that politicians by far and large IMO are not SERVING the American people and that incumbents do have a large advantage in getting elected time and time again, and the reality is that even if they could be voted out, I cannot vote out a crappy senator/representative who is not in my state, so I have to just deal with the fact that POS's like Barney Frank continue to have a job in the federal government.

IMO there are many ways to peel this orange, but we as a country need solutions for the Nancy Pelosi and Barney Franks of the world. IMO career politicians are bad for the country regardless of party affiliation and the first step to solve that problem would be term limits. Not to mention that limited terms in DC IS what the founding fathers intended and is not an arguable fact IMO, they simply didn't think they needed to put it in writing.

[Sigaba]

Banking on the word of Harry Reid is like...

Source is here.

Specter Will Be Junior Democrat on Committees
May 5, 2009, 8:55 p.m.
By John Stanton
Roll Call Staff

Despite promises from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) would retain his seniority after switching parties, Specter will be put at the end of the seniority line on all his committees but one under a resolution approved on the floor late Tuesday.

Under the modified organizing resolution, Specter will not keep his committee seniority on any of the five committees that he serves on and will be the junior Democrat on all but one — the chamber’s Special Committee on Aging. On that committee, he will be next to last in seniority.

As a result, Specter — who as a Republican was ranking member on the Judiciary Committee and a senior member of the Appropriations Committee, as well as ranking member of the panel’s Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education — will now rank behind all the other Democrats, at least until the end of this Congress.

According to a senior Democratic aide, it remains unclear whether Specter — who will still retain his seniority in the Senate outside of the committees — will see a boost in his committee seniority should he be re-elected for the next session. The status of his seniority for the next Congress will be determined once the 112th Congress convenes in 2011, the aide said.

Democrats said that while unrelated, Specter’s comments to the New York Times Magazine this weekend indicating he would support former Sen. Norm Coleman’s (R-Minn.) disputed re-election bid against Al Franken have angered many Democrats.

“Sen. Specter better watch comments like these. They won’t help him in the caucus,” a Democratic leadership aide said, adding that the comments have “caused a lot of heartburn in the caucus.”

David Drucker and Emily Pierce contributed to this report.