The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 10

Nephythys · 04-12-2006, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Random thought about politics.

Debate can be fun.

Yelling, screaming, talking down to people or attacking them will never change anyones mind. In fact it will make them more set in their beliefs.

Is this where I get to call people mentally twisted and throw bugs at you to make you cave into my way of seeing things?

Talk about random- did you notce that I agree with you. Not everything is divided by a political gap......we DO need less career politicians!

Nephythys · 04-12-2006, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Random political thought:

John McCain is a moron. At a recent speech, speaking of the need for illegal labor (and his bill for turning them all into guest workers), he said that no American would take $50/hour to pick lettuce in Yuma for the season. He even offered to pay it.

Should he come through on his offer, he'll spend his wife's fortune pretty quickly. I know a whole lot of Americans who would take $50 to pick lettuce for a month (or however long the season is).

Hell yes! I'll sign up, and make my kids work illegally too!

Alex- can you explain this more?

Quote:

Term limits are also a bad idea because they shift power from the person to the party.

BarTopDancer · 04-12-2006, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Out of curiosity, how many fewer? Would having just one do? You cut back on politicians and they get replaced by bureaucrats.

Term limits are also a bad idea because they shift power from the person to the party.

In other words, my view is that we don't need to reduce or limit politicians but simply reduce or limit what government is allowed to do. I don't really care if there are 536 politicians making decisions about defense but I do care if there is one politician making decisions about what I can put in my body.

Your view would work too.

If we had less people in office spending time trying to figure out how to cater to whatever group will get them re-elected we may get some actual work done. Or have less fruitless bills and laws trying to micromanage our lives.

Prudence · 04-12-2006, 02:10 PM

Or you could just appoint me as your occasionally benevolent dictator.

Alex · 04-12-2006, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Alex- can you explain this more?

Politics is not an easy game to play (as much as we'd like it to be; but it is made difficult by the fact that we want politicians to ignore special interests except our own) and it takes a lot of time and energy to build the networks and power that allow you to get things done.

With term limits, the politician himself is not really able to develop that power (and what is the point of another person putting a lot of capital into supporting a person who will just be gone in a few years anyway?) and they have to rely on a party to provide it. Instead it is better to scratch the back of the party and let the party scratch back than to scratch the back of the politician and have nobody scratching back in a couple years (and to say that all decisions in politics should be altruistic is the same as saying dark chocolate should fall from the sky on Sundays as a sign of benevolence from our lord savior).

Also, term limits are an embodiment of the idea that there is no such thing as "the best person for the job." That anybody can do it and the most important thing is that as many people as possible cycle through. If Person A really is the most effective person for whatever people want "a senator" to be, why should they be forced to replace him with inferior Person B after a few years? And if you're Person A and want to be involved in getting things done, which is better to be the senator or to be the person at the party who gets to pick and control senators?

Now, there nothing wrong with moving all power to the party instead of the person (most representative democracies work under this method and they generally work fine) but it isn't the way we're set up so if we're going to do it we should do it explicitly and rewrite the constitution.

scaeagles · 04-12-2006, 02:16 PM

In looking at the federalist papers (and don't ask me which one....I don't remember), the Senate was designed for the "career" politician, whereas the house was never intended to be filled with those. That was to be the "house of the people" with turnover designed to bring the common man into the process.

Some career politicians are necessary. The House was never intended to be that, however.

Alex · 04-12-2006, 02:25 PM

Yes, and those same federalists were perfectly capable of designing in term limits and had considered them.

The Senate was never intended to be directly elected by the people, either.

Plus, by handing over the power to the party you don't avoid career politicians you just create career politicians who are beholden more their party than to their constituents.

scaeagles · 04-12-2006, 02:30 PM

Isn't that what we already have? Particularly with campaign finance laws that allow large contributions to the party and smaller ones to the candidates? When the party controls the money, as they do, they can give the money to candidates that will tow the line. Both parties punish their elected members that may have voted the wrong way on a bill by withholding party money from their reelection campaigns.

I say outlaw monetary donations to the parties and allow unlimited and fully disclosed contributions to individuals.

Alex · 04-12-2006, 02:33 PM

Yes, and I oppose campaign contribution limitations in any form (so long as they are publicly reported). I certainly wasn't saying that term limits were the sole cause of an imbalance in party power.

Scrooge McSam · 04-12-2006, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Is this where I get to call people mentally twisted and throw bugs at you to make you cave into my way of seeing things?

Could you please? I'm beginning to miss my old "

Mentally Twisted

" signature.

04-12-2006, 02:10 PM	#94
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	Or you could just appoint me as your occasionally benevolent dictator. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

04-12-2006, 02:16 PM	#96
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	In looking at the federalist papers (and don't ask me which one....I don't remember), the Senate was designed for the "career" politician, whereas the house was never intended to be filled with those. That was to be the "house of the people" with turnover designed to bring the common man into the process. Some career politicians are necessary. The House was never intended to be that, however.
	Submit to Quotes

04-12-2006, 02:25 PM	#97
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yes, and those same federalists were perfectly capable of designing in term limits and had considered them. The Senate was never intended to be directly elected by the people, either. Plus, by handing over the power to the party you don't avoid career politicians you just create career politicians who are beholden more their party than to their constituents.
	Submit to Quotes

04-12-2006, 02:30 PM	#98
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Isn't that what we already have? Particularly with campaign finance laws that allow large contributions to the party and smaller ones to the candidates? When the party controls the money, as they do, they can give the money to candidates that will tow the line. Both parties punish their elected members that may have voted the wrong way on a bill by withholding party money from their reelection campaigns. I say outlaw monetary donations to the parties and allow unlimited and fully disclosed contributions to individuals.
	Submit to Quotes

04-12-2006, 02:33 PM	#99
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Yes, and I oppose campaign contribution limitations in any form (so long as they are publicly reported). I certainly wasn't saying that term limits were the sole cause of an imbalance in party power.
	Submit to Quotes