Your thoughts on these proposed amendments...

[Eleven]

I'm about as sick of the boomers as I can be.  I do acknowledge that my generation never will have any control of anything.  But, please consider the following:

1.  No person shall be eligible to run for President in a year in which he/she will become 70 or older.

2.  No Speaker of the House shall be 55 or older.

3.  No Senator shall be seated after the age of 70.

I'm not kidding; people that old do not have a self-interest in the future of the country and should not be running things.

[drnkirishone]

Limit the power of the most powerful.... good luck

[SwampD]

3 hours ago, Eleven said:

I'm about as sick of the boomers as I can be.  I do acknowledge that my generation never will have any control of anything.  But, please consider the following:

1.  No person shall be eligible to run for President in a year in which he/she will become 70 or older.

2.  No Speaker of the House shall be 55 or older.

3.  No Senator shall be seated after the age of 70.

I'm not kidding; people that old do not have a self-interest in the future of the country and should not be running things.

Not sure where this is coming from, but I'm pretty sure it's as unconstitutional as it gets.

And seriously? 55 isn't really that old.

Not sure 70 is either.

I think you need some sleep.

[North Buffalo]

Nope that won't work... eliminate or divest money as being a form of free speech in politics.  Then you could effectively regulate campaign finance giving limitations and eliminate corporation from giving to PACs

Also require all contributions be public including 501C3s

[Eleven]

6 hours ago, SwampD said:

Not sure where this is coming from, but I'm pretty sure it's as unconstitutional as it gets.

And seriously? 55 isn't really that old.

Not sure 70 is either.

I think you need some sleep.

They wouldn't be unconstitutional if they were amendments to the Constitution!

[SwampD]

7 hours ago, Eleven said:

They wouldn't be unconstitutional if they were amendments to the Constitution!

Um, oh yeah,... there’s that. 

I think I needed some sleep.

Edited January 4, 2019 by SwampD

[SwampD]

I just think that the Constitution should be for telling us what we have the right to do, not telling us what we can’t do.

[darksabre]

I don't really see the need to make rules about this stuff. How about we just actually vote for people who best represent us?

[LGR4GM]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/term-limits-ted-cruz-proposal/index.html

Term limits seems to be something that could happen. 

[Eleven]

52 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/term-limits-ted-cruz-proposal/index.html

Term limits seems to be something that could happen. 

Yes, although I think 3 terms is too short for the House.

[LGR4GM]

1 hour ago, Eleven said:

Yes, although I think 3 terms is too short for the House.

I think 5 terms in the house and 3 in the Senate. If you are actually a non crappy politician that gives you 28 years of potential time in office. More than enough. 

Edited January 4, 2019 by LGR4GM

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

I think 5 terms in the house and 3 in the Senate. If you are actually a non crappy politician that gives you 28 years of potential time in office. More than enough. 

2 in the Senate is enough.  That's 3 presidential administrations.  When Arkansas enacted term limits (later found to be unconstitutional), they did 3 (representative) and 2 (senator) as you originally proposed.

Edited January 4, 2019 by Eleven

[drnkirishone]

I am not opposed to term limits on all elected positions. However you will never get the people in the positions of power to put limits on that power. When was the last time they passed any legislation that limited or rolled back any benefits due to them?

[LTS]

On 1/3/2019 at 7:16 PM, Eleven said:

I'm about as sick of the boomers as I can be.  I do acknowledge that my generation never will have any control of anything.  But, please consider the following:

1.  No person shall be eligible to run for President in a year in which he/she will become 70 or older.

2.  No Speaker of the House shall be 55 or older.

3.  No Senator shall be seated after the age of 70.

I'm not kidding; people that old do not have a self-interest in the future of the country and should not be running things.

Not a fan of these at all.  Forcing us to choose younger people doesn't mean the younger people will be better. Some will lack the experience on how to handle situations. The problem, in my opinion isn't age, it's the machine and the US general population that allows it to persist.

If you limit the ages I think you'll get politicians who are more apt to want to set themselves up for life once they are forced to leave office.  More corruption, guarantees of consulting gigs, and other jobs after they have to leave office.

On 1/4/2019 at 12:21 PM, LGR4GM said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politics/term-limits-ted-cruz-proposal/index.html

Term limits seems to be something that could happen. 

Term limits, in my opinion, are band-aids to the real problem and at some point someone is going to get really upset when a "GOOD" politician is forced to leave office because of it. It will happen.  You'll have Senator X forced to not run and the options will be terrible.

The bottom line is that the US population has to become more involved. I think it might actually happen given some of the tendencies of the younger population these days. I just hope that it continues and forces changes.  We have the ability to change government and limit terms. We have to use those abilities.

Unfortunately, at some point people fall into the trap of becoming more invested in their own lives and just feel that the government will continue to suck.  I admitted in the other thread that I am at that point. I want to see change, but I'm burned out. Admittedly there appear to be some good changes elected into power this year in some areas.  I had no control over those (not in NYS).  I hope there is more of that in the future.

 

[Samson's Flow]

On 1/7/2019 at 10:30 AM, LTS said:

Not a fan of these at all.  Forcing us to choose younger people doesn't mean the younger people will be better. Some will lack the experience on how to handle situations. The problem, in my opinion isn't age, it's the machine and the US general population that allows it to persist.

If you limit the ages I think you'll get politicians who are more apt to want to set themselves up for life once they are forced to leave office.  More corruption, guarantees of consulting gigs, and other jobs after they have to leave office.

Term limits, in my opinion, are band-aids to the real problem and at some point someone is going to get really upset when a "GOOD" politician is forced to leave office because of it. It will happen.  You'll have Senator X forced to not run and the options will be terrible.

The bottom line is that the US population has to become more involved. I think it might actually happen given some of the tendencies of the younger population these days. I just hope that it continues and forces changes.  We have the ability to change government and limit terms. We have to use those abilities.

Unfortunately, at some point people fall into the trap of becoming more invested in their own lives and just feel that the government will continue to suck.  I admitted in the other thread that I am at that point. I want to see change, but I'm burned out. Admittedly there appear to be some good changes elected into power this year in some areas.  I had no control over those (not in NYS).  I hope there is more of that in the future.

 

This is what is always about. If the general voting population is invested in the outcomes and informed on the issues, our representatives will be far more reflective of populist center-of-the-political spectrum views, and the public would be able to identify and respond to private and corporate agendas in our candidates.

Right now the only voices that consistently vote are the radicals on both sides, so the candidates tend to respond to those voices and adopt strong liberal or conservative platforms.

[Weave]

7 hours ago, Samson's Flow said:

This is what is always about. If the general voting population is invested in the outcomes and informed on the issues, our representatives will be far more reflective of populist center-of-the-political spectrum views, and the public would be able to identify and respond to private and corporate agendas in our candidates.

Right now the only voices that consistently vote are the radicals on both sides, so the candidates tend to respond to those voices and adopt strong liberal or conservative platforms.

I wish I could get back to where I believed this.  The system is closed to us.  We don't get to pick the candidates.  They are chosen by a relative few power brokers based on their ability to raise money.  The campaign finance system ensures that our voice is not the voice that is paid attention to.  And gerrymandering assures that parties in power stay in power, and that divisive politics remain the rule, not the exception.

[LGR4GM]

13 hours ago, Weave said:

I wish I could get back to where I believed this.  The system is closed to us.  We don't get to pick the candidates.  They are chosen by a relative few power brokers based on their ability to raise money.  The campaign finance system ensures that our voice is not the voice that is paid attention to.  And gerrymandering assures that parties in power stay in power, and that divisive politics remain the rule, not the exception.

Yup. That's how Hillary ran for president over Bernie. 

[LTS]

14 hours ago, Weave said:

I wish I could get back to where I believed this.  The system is closed to us.  We don't get to pick the candidates.  They are chosen by a relative few power brokers based on their ability to raise money.  The campaign finance system ensures that our voice is not the voice that is paid attention to.  And gerrymandering assures that parties in power stay in power, and that divisive politics remain the rule, not the exception.

All very valid points and the reason I have lost faith in our population. Despite being disagreed about in the main forum, we're a country that is marketed to on a constant basis and as such we allow our field of view to be narrowed by media outlets and other means.

We are kept distracted while the power brokers manipulate the system.  Here, watch something about Kim Kardashian and ignore what is taking money out of your back pocket.

The concept that I mentioned and that Samson's Flow reiterated is that the TOOLS are there, we are just too stupid and unwilling to use them.  Legislation won't fix that however. Forcing people out of the system doesn't change the system, it just increases the number of politicians who get free healthcare for life, etc. It will actually increase the costs of operating the government, not lessen it.

Until the American public wants real change, it's not going to happen.  I don't see it happening in my lifetime without some significant event occurring and honestly I'd rather we didn't suffer the kind of significant event that would cause that change.

 

[Samson's Flow]

15 hours ago, Weave said:

I wish I could get back to where I believed this.  The system is closed to us.  We don't get to pick the candidates.  They are chosen by a relative few power brokers based on their ability to raise money.  The campaign finance system ensures that our voice is not the voice that is paid attention to.  And gerrymandering assures that parties in power stay in power, and that divisive politics remain the rule, not the exception.

This is a very valid point. I recognize that it is far harder for a groundswell candidate to make it all the way to winning a party primary without at least some support from the major donors/special interests - which is a huge challenge and probably worth discussing. The last attempt was probably Bernie. I would argue that part of this phenomenon still comes back to not enough people are participating in the electoral process, which makes it easier for the 'power brokers' to impose their will and squash a popular candidate. These 'power brokers' do an admittedly great job of imposing their will early enough before the voter support gets too strong to overcome. 

[Eleven]

On 1/7/2019 at 10:30 AM, LTS said:

Not a fan of these at all.  Forcing us to choose younger people doesn't mean the younger people will be better. Some will lack the experience on how to handle situations. The problem, in my opinion isn't age, it's the machine and the US general population that allows it to persist.

If you limit the ages I think you'll get politicians who are more apt to want to set themselves up for life once they are forced to leave office.  More corruption, guarantees of consulting gigs, and other jobs after they have to leave office.

Term limits, in my opinion, are band-aids to the real problem and at some point someone is going to get really upset when a "GOOD" politician is forced to leave office because of it. It will happen.  You'll have Senator X forced to not run and the options will be terrible.

The bottom line is that the US population has to become more involved. I think it might actually happen given some of the tendencies of the younger population these days. I just hope that it continues and forces changes.  We have the ability to change government and limit terms. We have to use those abilities.

Unfortunately, at some point people fall into the trap of becoming more invested in their own lives and just feel that the government will continue to suck.  I admitted in the other thread that I am at that point. I want to see change, but I'm burned out. Admittedly there appear to be some good changes elected into power this year in some areas.  I had no control over those (not in NYS).  I hope there is more of that in the future.

 

So I haven't stepped in here in a while...anyway:  Your point about people setting themselves up for when they have to leave office is well-taken, but it applies equally to the term limit situation.  

I just don't like people making rules that will not affect them.  The thought that my niece and nephew's children and grandchildren likely will not lead full lives because 75-year-olds won't do anything about the environment, for example, sickens me.

5 hours ago, Samson's Flow said:

This is a very valid point. I recognize that it is far harder for a groundswell candidate to make it all the way to winning a party primary without at least some support from the major donors/special interests - which is a huge challenge and probably worth discussing. The last attempt was probably Bernie. I would argue that part of this phenomenon still comes back to not enough people are participating in the electoral process, which makes it easier for the 'power brokers' to impose their will and squash a popular candidate. These 'power brokers' do an admittedly great job of imposing their will early enough before the voter support gets too strong to overcome. 

I would say the last successful attempt was Bill Clinton, actually.

[Weave]

8 hours ago, LTS said:

All very valid points and the reason I have lost faith in our population. Despite being disagreed about in the main forum, we're a country that is marketed to on a constant basis and as such we allow our field of view to be narrowed by media outlets and other means.

We are kept distracted while the power brokers manipulate the system.  Here, watch something about Kim Kardashian and ignore what is taking money out of your back pocket.

The concept that I mentioned and that Samson's Flow reiterated is that the TOOLS are there, we are just too stupid and unwilling to use them.  Legislation won't fix that however. Forcing people out of the system doesn't change the system, it just increases the number of politicians who get free healthcare for life, etc. It will actually increase the costs of operating the government, not lessen it.

Until the American public wants real change, it's not going to happen.  I don't see it happening in my lifetime without some significant event occurring and honestly I'd rather we didn't suffer the kind of significant event that would cause that change.

 

My point is, it doesn't matter how stupid or disinterested the populace has become.  The populace isn't able to make a choice anyway.  Those choices are filtered long before the populace ever has a shot.  Noone in a position of influence is going to allow the changes to affect a real difference, so any want fo rchange won't matter.  At this point the only possibility for real, actual change is the event you hint at, which won't happen as long as the populace is comfortable enough to not want to participate in the event.  Our government has become very skilled at making sure we are just comfortable enough.

[LTS]

16 hours ago, Weave said:

My point is, it doesn't matter how stupid or disinterested the populace has become.  The populace isn't able to make a choice anyway.  Those choices are filtered long before the populace ever has a shot.  Noone in a position of influence is going to allow the changes to affect a real difference, so any want fo rchange won't matter.  At this point the only possibility for real, actual change is the event you hint at, which won't happen as long as the populace is comfortable enough to not want to participate in the event.  Our government has become very skilled at making sure we are just comfortable enough.

I agree with you for the most part.  However improbable, it still feels like there is a level of possibility that won't go away.

At some point within the next 10 years I suspect there will be a run for a political office that stems from some YouTube/Twitch star.  I don't think that run will be a sham either. Now, one might argue that it could end up being a filtered choice put in place by the same powers you are referring to in an attempt to take over that medium as a means of disseminating their message and maintaining credibility and relativity.  It's possible.

The way in which we consume data is changing rapidly and I'm not entirely positive that the fossils in power have a full grasp on it.  I'm not trying to say they won't figure it out.

[SABRES 0311]

On 1/4/2019 at 9:16 AM, Eleven said:

I'm about as sick of the boomers as I can be.  I do acknowledge that my generation never will have any control of anything.  But, please consider the following:

1.  No person shall be eligible to run for President in a year in which he/she will become 70 or older.

2.  No Speaker of the House shall be 55 or older.

3.  No Senator shall be seated after the age of 70.

I'm not kidding; people that old do not have a self-interest in the future of the country and should not be running things.

The only one I would change is 2. I’d say 65 because 55 seems rather young.

I would also like term limits instead of career politicians. Promotes fresh people with hopefully fresh ideas but I could see former politicians turning into lobbyists. Say three terms total. Not allowed to do three years in the Senate then three in the House.

Also, anyone running for POTUS should have a full medical exam, mental and physical done by an independent physician and at the candidate’s expense. 

[North Buffalo]

On 1/13/2019 at 7:40 AM, SABRES 0311 said:

The only one I would change is 2. I’d say 65 because 55 seems rather young.

I would also like term limits instead of career politicians. Promotes fresh people with hopefully fresh ideas but I could see former politicians turning into lobbyists. Say three terms total. Not allowed to do three years in the Senate then three in the House.

Also, anyone running for POTUS should have a full medical exam, mental and physical done by an independent physician and at the candidate’s expense. 

Id add in line item veto and full disclosure of filed taxes for all including President and eliminate corporate campaign contributions to PACs and 501c3s

Edited January 14, 2019 by North Buffalo

[SABRES 0311]

2 minutes ago, North Buffalo said:

Id add in line item veto and full disclosure of filed taxes for all including President and eliminate corporate campIgn contributions to PACs and 501c3s

Full public audit of the Fed and Fort Knox. Full disclosure on some events that happened in New Mexico and else where.