It's a Start with More to Come!
- Thread starter Poorboy
- Start date
Last Saturday The Utah GOP Ousted Republican Senator Robert Bennett in the 2nd Round! The people are Mad and want "Change" and That's a Good Thing! Looks Like they believe in the Saying: Vote No Incumbant Back in Office!
Jim Bunning is gone too. ALL incumbents MUST go, ALL parties. All State and local as well as National incumbents. GONE! They ALL SUCK!!!
Can't agree with this one. Most incumbents must go, about 90% maybe but not all. My rep is a first term conservative doing a good job. He should get another term rather than "changing" for the sake of change and making statements. We've seen how smart that is and how well it works.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
See there's the problem.
It's not my representative he/shes doing a good job but it is everyone else's.
I feel it is the same type of excuse we are hearing here, we need to rid ourselves of term limits because we need experienced legislators to run the state - when we need to have a part time house.
The problem is change is good in congress. The system doesn't fall apart with new people coming in, but rather with old people sitting around taking up space and money.
If my guy was up for his 3d or higher term OR if he'd been on the wrong side all the time in his first term I'd be all for changing him. Change for nothing but change's sake is NOT good, it is stupid. Certainly we don't want guys getting in for life but to throw out a one term guy who has done a good job makes no sense.
Last edited:
I Have Found that the First Timers Usually do the Right Thing, And after being Re-Elected They Start to get too Confident that they Can't be Replaced Like so Many of the Incumbents, so they Start to Get Lazy or whatever and Just Roll with the Flow Instead of doing what the People want! (Just Look at Marcy Kaptur in Ohio) She "Used" To be For the People But Hasn't been for the Last 10 Years or so! And If they Get Re-Elected to a 3rd. Term that's when they Really Start to Screw things Up! I Really Hope that If your Guy down in Texas gets Re-Elected He won't become Status Quo!
Last edited:
What happens is that they become "infected" with that worst of all diseases, POWER. Few are ever able to fight it off. It is a very seductive disease.
The lack of term limits is not the problem. The problem is that the "Sheeple" are just too dang gum lazy, fat and dumb to just vote them out of office. We have term limits, they are called the VOTING BOOTH!!
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Sorry Leo, it seems that you have fallen for the same BS. Who can say if the other person is any better or worst but as Poor Boy pointed out, it seems the second term is where they get their attitude that they are better.
It isn't change for changes sake, it is returning the system back to what it should be. It seems that the problem is just that "it isn't my guy that's the problem".
The system wasn't designed for long term elected officials, representatives should serve one or two terms and that's it but changing the water in times like these is justified and if your good ol' boy there complains then he shouldn't be there.
Have I ever said anything except term limits should be in place? No. But I don't believe in term limits being absolutely 1 term only, especially with a 2 year term in the house. Now, one term of six years in the senate is a different matter. I'd give the same 6 years to the house also but I'm not going to say there's anything automatically wrong with voting a guy into a second term in the house.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Why?
6 years in the house is too long. The way it was supposed to work is this;
The people are represented by the house, the states are represented by the senate.
The term in the house was short because they did the people's business, the term in the senate was because they did the state's business and there wasn't a lot in the senate to do.
The people need to be represented by the people that make up that district. If one term is all that is what the people want, then OK the people can select another.
The problem seems to be that many who use this twisted logic of 'not my guy' based on this idea that there is a serious shortage of people who will run and actually do good for the people who elect them. There's no shortage, the only obstacle is the 'not my guy' attitude that is leveraged to get reelected and how the parties use it to further their power.
6 years in the house is too long. The way it was supposed to work is this;
The people are represented by the house, the states are represented by the senate.
The term in the house was short because they did the people's business, the term in the senate was because they did the state's business and there wasn't a lot in the senate to do.
The people need to be represented by the people that make up that district. If one term is all that is what the people want, then OK the people can select another.
The problem seems to be that many who use this twisted logic of 'not my guy' based on this idea that there is a serious shortage of people who will run and actually do good for the people who elect them. There's no shortage, the only obstacle is the 'not my guy' attitude that is leveraged to get reelected and how the parties use it to further their power.
So you are saying NEVER vote for the same guy in the house no matter what. In other words, ALWAYS throw the baby out with the bath water. Vote against the guy who gave you two years at ninety-four percent to vote for the unknown new guy. Sorry. No. That's just as stupid as voting for the same guy seventeen times in a row.
Throw them all out and make me King!!!
You can be King, just make me benevolent dictator of Michigan!!
Throw them all out and make me King!!!
You would Probably do better than what's in Office Today! You Got the Job!
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Actually, the problem is that half the populace are tax feeders. As long as the have their snout in the trough, they're not going to vote for anyone or anything to derail the gravy train.
Only taxpayers should be allowed to vote. But the Demon-crats know they'd lose every election that way, so that's never going to happen.
I love Ron Paul, but if 100% turnover means losing him, buh-bye, Ron.
RE-ELECT NOBODY.