Talk-Polywell.org

ladajo wrote:I, for one, think that while Trump may be "corrupt" in some business sense, it pales by comparison for the complete disregard and even contempt of the business, legal, and governing systems that Hillary & William call me Bill have demonstrated repeatedly over the years. The utter certainty they continue to portray regarding self entitlement is mind boggling. Having them back in the White House would only further our national death spiral into money driven power politics and government corruption. It may be the final nails in our system's coffin, as the cronyism and pay to play finally cements itself in place. I really am tired of the lies and horseshit that they and people like them attempt to pour on the public to blind everyone to the facts that the corrupt pieces of shit are only in it for power and riches at the expense of the people. Now, let me tell you how I really feel...

My opinion, but I think you could insert Trump in your statement above and get the same result. The man has done nothing but lose money his whole life. At best he's worth between 700 million and 2.5 billion, yet we know he'd be worth more had he simply not touched the money at all. Bankruptcy might be a valid business strategy, but I view it no different than many of you view welfare (lack of taking responsibility, etc.). I wouldn't let him near my money, but then again I wouldn't let the rest of them near it either. We have a lack of quality candidates, period. While we're griping about the state of our nation, I'd like to see term limits implemented beyond the executive branch.

While Trump may be Trump, what he is not (yet at least) is a politician dependent on bribe money for power.
I fully support term limits for Congress. 12 years max across the board. Although, I may also need to ponder on making that half for the house. So three terms in the house, or two in the Senate. If you move to the Senate from the House, your House time counts against your Senate seat, or vice/versa (which is probably not an issue). In addition, I don't think you should be eligible for a pension from Congress. Ever.

Supreme Court; I'd have to think on that.

As a nation, we have got to break the cycle in congress in particular. The empire building has gotten beyond ridiculous. I think term limits is the way to break it.

I think the biggest problem is that congress is the biggest creators of millionaires for any job field.
National unemployment has lingered above 8 percent for longer than 28 straight months. Congress, meanwhile, is a club that consists of 245 millionaires. Based on 2009 data, there are currently 66 in the Senate and 179 in the House (among current voting members). So while just 1 percent of Americans are millionaires, 66 percent of senators are millionaires, as are 41 percent of House members.

I think the term limits should be like the military, 20 years half pension.
as for the Justices they serve an average of 15 to 20 years. Self correcting problem

I'm favoring 8 years total and no swapping. This way you're urged to get work done vs. making a career of staying in your seat.

ScottL wrote: I think she is as corrupt as Trump, but more capable than him.

ScottL wrote:I'm favoring 8 years total and no swapping. This way you're urged to get work done vs. making a career of staying in your seat.

Fat chance that the current Congress (or any Congress) would vote to amend the Federal Constitution to do away with their own gravy train. However maybe something could be done at the state level. Suppose a State through its legislature (or ballot initiative) passed a law saying that a Federal Senator or Congressman running for re-election couldn't legally appear on the State's ballot come election time after serving a certain no. of terms or time in office. Two terms for a Senator say & 6 terms for a Congressman and/or an aggregate 12 years in office. That they (incumbents Congressmen/Senators) were no longer "certified" to appear on the particular States' ballot any longer. They could only run for Congress as a write-in candidate say (this might get around the inevitable federal court law suit claiming it (my proposed law) was unconstitutional). Maybe combine that if legally possible with state laws drastically limiting donation amounts after said 12 years in office. Our sovereign states are a powerful tool that we underuse to effect national federal policy. Just look at what we have done to reform gun rights (concealed carry, stand your ground law etc.) and of course the legalization of marijuana. Of course my idea even if adopted wouldn't work to limit terms for say Federal Judges (and I think 12 years is long enough for them as well). I don't think any President should have the ability to re-make the Federal court (& not just the Supreme Court) in their ideological image for decades after they leave office. When the Constitution was originally adopted, probably 12 years was maybe about the average a federal judge appointed for life actually served, when you consider the much shorter life expectancy back then.

States do have the power. Read Article V.
What it needs is a cheerleader.

williatw wrote:

ScottL wrote:I'm favoring 8 years total and no swapping. This way you're urged to get work done vs. making a career of staying in your seat.

Fat chance that the current Congress (or any Congress) would vote to amend the Federal Constitution to do away with their own gravy train. However maybe something could be done at the state level. Suppose a State through its legislature (or ballot initiative) passed a law saying that a Federal Senator or Congressman running for re-election couldn't legally appear on the State's ballot come election time after serving a certain no. of terms or time in office. Two terms for a Senator say & 6 terms for a Congressman and/or an aggregate 12 years in office. That they (incumbents Congressmen/Senators) were no longer "certified" to appear on the particular States' ballot any longer. They could only run for Congress as a write-in candidate say (this might get around the inevitable federal court law suit claiming it (my proposed law) was unconstitutional). Maybe combine that if legally possible with state laws drastically limiting donation amounts after said 12 years in office. Our sovereign states are a powerful tool that we underuse to effect national federal policy. Just look at what we have done to reform gun rights (concealed carry, stand your ground law etc.) and of course the legalization of marijuana. Of course my idea even if adopted wouldn't work to limit terms for say Federal Judges (and I think 12 years is long enough for them as well). I don't think any President should have the ability to re-make the Federal court (& not just the Supreme Court) in their ideological image for decades after they leave office. When the Constitution was originally adopted, probably 12 years was maybe about the average a federal judge appointed for life actually served, when you consider the much shorter life expectancy back then.

Well DUH! Of course they aren't going to change it, but I can still wishfully think. Stop trying to ruin my day dreams of work getting done!

ScottL wrote:Well DUH! Of course they aren't going to change it, but I can still wishfully think. Stop trying to ruin my day dreams of work getting done!

Uhh..I thought I was suggesting a practical way in which something could be done to change it:

williatw wrote: However maybe something could be done at the state level. Suppose a State through its legislature (or ballot initiative) passed a law saying that a Federal Senator or Congressman running for re-election couldn't legally appear on the State's ballot come election time after serving a certain no. of terms or time in office.

williatw wrote:

ScottL wrote:Well DUH! Of course they aren't going to change it, but I can still wishfully think. Stop trying to ruin my day dreams of work getting done!

Uhh..I thought I was suggesting a practical way in which something could be done to change it:

williatw wrote: However maybe something could be done at the state level. Suppose a State through its legislature (or ballot initiative) passed a law saying that a Federal Senator or Congressman running for re-election couldn't legally appear on the State's ballot come election time after serving a certain no. of terms or time in office.

Was commenting on the first line or two you posted, didn't mean for the entire quote.

From an interview with Anderson Cooper (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... a-classic/)

TRUMP: She was grabbing me. And just so you understand, she was off base because she went through the Secret Service. She had a pen in her hand which Secret Service is not liking because they don't know what it is, whether it's a little bomb or --

Well, clearly it was a weapon. The pen is, as we all know, mightier than the sword. No wonder Trump fears it so much, and wants the law to allow him to sue any journalist who criticizes him.

I'd point out his hysteria and self-contradiction, or simply that he sees what he cares to when the rest of us see his thug reach way out and deliberately grab a reporter (from a news organization that has been favorable to Trump!) and clearly yanks her. All this perfectly consistent with Trump's own language regarding what should be done to people he doesn't like. No doubt his supporters will shrug this off as they have everything else, because you obviously can fool some of the people all of the time.

I just wish that Ted Cruz would stop sending me emails begging for a campaign contribution. Just because we're both Canadians doesn't mean I'm going to support him running for POTUS.

williatw wrote:Uhh..I thought I was suggesting a practical way in which something could be done to change it:

williatw wrote: However maybe something could be done at the state level. Suppose a State through its legislature (or ballot initiative) passed a law saying that a Federal Senator or Congressman running for re-election couldn't legally appear on the State's ballot come election time after serving a certain no. of terms or time in office.

Apparently my practical way to change it sucks eggs:

In 1995, the Court considered in U. S. Term Limits v Hill the constitutionality of an Arkansas law that limited Arkansas representatives to a maximum of three terms (6 years) in the U. S. House or two terms (12 years) in the U. S. Senate. (The law prohibited persons who had served the maximum number of terms from being certified for the ballot, leaving open only the nearly hopeless prospect of running as a write-in candidate.) The Court concluded that the Qualifications Clauses of Article I, Sections 2 and 3 set forth a set of qualifications for federal elected office that could not be altered or added to. The Court saw as central to the framers vision that voters have the right to vote for whomever they wished. The Court also rejected the argument of Arkansas that its ballot access law might be considered a "time, place or manner" regulation of a federal election, such as is authorized by Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution. The regulation, according to the Court, was clearly a "qualification." In dissent, Justice Thomas argued that the qualifications set forth in Article I were a "minimum" set of qualifications and that the states--under the 10th Amendment--had the power to impose additional qualifications.

Crap..double-crap should have realized someone else would have thought of it!


http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... clause.htm

Laser cloaking device could help us hide from aliens
http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press/28 ... rom-aliens

Fellow Mammals, it is too late for laser-cloaking our planet...

The Trump people have stepped over the line.
Look now you will thank me later
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfr64zoBTAQ