• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Career politicans?

What would you do with career politicians?

  • Keep things as they are.

    Votes: 10 29.4%

  • Eliminate them through mandatory term limits.

    Votes: 22 64.7%

  • Don't know / no opinion.

    Votes: 2 5.9%
  • Total voters
    34
Harry Guerrilla said:
It doesn't work like that.

There is no one willing to stop these things, it would be committing political suicide for them.
I am a minority and my rights have been compromised for the majority.
Click to expand...

Politicians don't vore themselves in, you and I do.




You can always refuse benefits, no one is forcing you to take them.
Click to expand...

Do you drive on a road that federal dollars payed for? Then you have taken a benefit from the government, and cannot vote under your plan.



Of course. If you want to selflessly contribute, you must actually contribute.

We require our juries, judges, politicians etc to recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest involved in something they are handling.
Why should we not also recuse ourselves when there is a blatant conflict of interest?

All I asking for is a voter bill of ethics, if that is elitist then there is no hope for us to remain free from any abuse.
Click to expand...

People contribute to the political process every time they vote. Further, every single person has a "conflict of interest" when it comes to voting.
 
Redress said:
Politicians don't vore themselves in, you and I do.
Click to expand...

I don't, no one represents what I believe.
The majority keeps the current power structure as it is, shifting back and forth between two factions.

Redress said:
Do you drive on a road that federal dollars payed for? Then you have taken a benefit from the government, and cannot vote under your plan.
Click to expand...

That's not a benefit outside of the role of government.

We are talking about benefits not granted by The Constitution, outside the role of government.

You can say they are at times ambiguous but if you take the time to read the federalist papers they clearly define what role the government has to play in day to day interactions with the people.


Redress said:
People contribute to the political process every time they vote. Further, every single person has a "conflict of interest" when it comes to voting.
Click to expand...

How is someone contributing?
Casting a vote carries a value of zero when the person is uninformed, ignorant or purposefully destructive.

Not true, we are talking about conflicts of interest that are outside the role of government.

Someone receiving welfare(rich or poor) has a serious conflict of interest.
If government makes special considerations for them or their group that is a direct conflict.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
How is someone contributing?
Casting a vote carries a value of zero when the person is uninformed, ignorant or purposefully destructive.

.
Click to expand...


I'd go further than that. When those who are ignorant, unreasonably selfish or irreponsible vote, it has a negative value because we all suffer for their lack of civic responsibility. This is one reason why I think having someone demonstrate some civic responsibility to earn franchise might be desirable.


Then again, given the perversity of the human critter, they'd probably find some way to screw that up too! :doh
 
Goshin said:
I'd go further than that. When those who are ignorant, unreasonably selfish or irreponsible vote, it has a negative value because we all suffer for their lack of civic responsibility. This is one reason why I think having someone demonstrate some civic responsibility to earn franchise might be desirable.


Then again, given the perversity of the human critter, they'd probably find some way to screw that up too! :doh
Click to expand...

Most likely, a lot of this involves human psychology.

If something is just given away freely, people will treat it as such.
Forget about all the romanticized nonsense about "Rocking the Vote".
It holds no value except to politicians.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't, no one represents what I believe.
The majority keeps the current power structure as it is, shifting back and forth between two factions.
Click to expand...

Don't take this poorly, but you are on the fringe of political belief. You just are not going to have people elected to fit your beliefs. That is not a flaw of the system.



That's not a benefit outside of the role of government.

We are talking about benefits not granted by The Constitution, outside the role of government.

You can say they are at times ambiguous but if you take the time to read the federalist papers they clearly define what role the government has to play in day to day interactions with the people.
Click to expand...

You are talking about that, I am saying that is not the government that people have chosen. Unfortunately for you, the people have the say in the matter, not you personally.


How is someone contributing?
Casting a vote carries a value of zero when the person is uninformed, ignorant or purposefully destructive.

Not true, we are talking about conflicts of interest that are outside the role of government.

Someone receiving welfare(rich or poor) has a serious conflict of interest.
If government makes special considerations for them or their group that is a direct conflict.
Click to expand...

You are making value judgments that, frankly, you have no right to try and enforce. I voted for Obama, am I "uniformed, ignorant or purposefully destructive"? You are trying to suggest that some one who votes in a way you don't like is worthy of insult, which I disagree with.

If caring about politics and our government is a conflict of interest, so be it. We all benefit from government is some ways, so we all have that conflict of interest.

It is important to add that you have yet to show in any way how restricting the vote to certain people would create a better government. You have said that since I, and my mother, and my stepmother, all should not be allowed to vote. Thankfully, you will never get enough people to agree with you to enact your radical, fringe element lunatic plan.
 
Redress said:
Don't take this poorly, but you are on the fringe of political belief. You just are not going to have people elected to fit your beliefs. That is not a flaw of the system.
Click to expand...

I agree some of my beliefs are considered fringe, it can be a badge of honor to me though so no offense taken.

I think we will always disagree on the system being flawed.

Redress said:
You are talking about that, I am saying that is not the government that people have chosen. Unfortunately for you, the people have the say in the matter, not you personally.
Click to expand...

I understand, I have pretty much zero confidence that most of the ideas I present will ever be considered.
We are in the downward slope of the evolution of government, so it's kind of a given at this point.

Redress said:
You are making value judgments that, frankly, you have no right to try and enforce. I voted for Obama, am I "uniformed, ignorant or purposefully destructive"? You are trying to suggest that some one who votes in a way you don't like is worthy of insult, which I disagree with.
Click to expand...

It depends on why you voted for him, I wouldn't call you any of those until I understand why.
Even then you may not fit those terms.

Redress said:
If caring about politics and our government is a conflict of interest, so be it. We all benefit from government is some ways, so we all have that conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

Its not the caring part, it is the unearned benefits that people receive.
That is where the conflict of interest comes in, roads, police etc. are understandably part of our system.

Trade barriers for certain products, welfare (both rich and poor), and other things give individuals unearned benefits they do not deserve and the government has no authority to grant.


Redress said:
It is important to add that you have yet to show in any way how restricting the vote to certain people would create a better government. You have said that since I, and my mother, and my stepmother, all should not be allowed to vote. Thankfully, you will never get enough people to agree with you to enact your radical, fringe element lunatic plan.
Click to expand...

I would not be allowed to vote under my plan, the thing is that the people who are left to vote would most likely be considerate of tax rates, spending, welfare (both rich and poor), etc.
I am more than happy to loose my privilege of voting so that the system may be fixed. I welcome it.

Are you willing to give up something short term, to gain in the long?

They will face consequences of loosing their say if they attempt to gain unearned benefits. They will also not be hampered by a conflict of interest with things like Medicare, SS, Medicaid, business preferences etc.

Its sounds radical, fringe but we put these requirements on our public officials to try and curb corruption and bribery, why should we not do it to ourselves?
 
Repeal term limits on legislative posts. One reason California is so ****ed up is because of term limits. As soon as someone knows what they're doing, really understands the complex nature of the political system, they're out of a job, or they're too busy trying to find their next office. Not to mention legislators can't develop the close relationships that foster cooperativeness. If you don't like the job someone's doing, or if he's been in for so long, vote him out, easy as that.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Repeal term limits on legislative posts. One reason California is so ****ed up is because of term limits. As soon as someone knows what they're doing, really understands the complex nature of the political system, they're out of a job, or they're too busy trying to find their next office. Not to mention legislators can't develop the close relationships that foster cooperativeness. If you don't like the job someone's doing, or if he's been in for so long, vote him out, easy as that.
Click to expand...

That's because once someone knows what they're doing, they're in the pocket of the unions and entirely corrupt and we shouldn't allow them in office anymore. That's really the biggest problem with the political system these days, it isn't that we elect schmucks, it's that the only way to get elected is to be corrupt and if you're not when you get into office, the only way to survive and get re-elected is to be corrupted. People with ethics who represent the people who put them in office are a dead breed. The political machine killed them.
 
Cephus said:
That's because once someone knows what they're doing, they're in the pocket of the unions and entirely corrupt and we shouldn't allow them in office anymore. That's really the biggest problem with the political system these days, it isn't that we elect schmucks, it's that the only way to get elected is to be corrupt and if you're not when you get into office, the only way to survive and get re-elected is to be corrupted. People with ethics who represent the people who put them in office are a dead breed. The political machine killed them.
Click to expand...

I really think unions get more blame than they deserve. I mean, they're not the only interest group that has too much money to spend. Businesses, developers, taxpayer groups, it's not just the unions.
 
Cephus said:
That's because once someone knows what they're doing, they're in the pocket of the unions and entirely corrupt and we shouldn't allow them in office anymore. That's really the biggest problem with the political system these days, it isn't that we elect schmucks, it's that the only way to get elected is to be corrupt and if you're not when you get into office, the only way to survive and get re-elected is to be corrupted. People with ethics who represent the people who put them in office are a dead breed. The political machine killed them.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree.

I'll dig for his name if I must, but I remember my father telling me about at least one member of the House of Representatives in particular who would accept donations up to but not exceeding $50. If you sent him a check for $50.01, he'd send you a check for $0.01.

That said, I will certainly agree that the system is broken all to hell. Part of the problem isn't just that being corrupt helps you get elected, it's that we reward people who do anything it takes to get into power.

The Presidency is a fine example of this.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I'll dig for his name if I must, but I remember my father telling me about at least one member of the House of Representatives in particular who would accept donations up to but not exceeding $50. If you sent him a check for $50.01, he'd send you a check for $0.01.
Click to expand...

A single example does not make a rule. If you can only come up with one, and I'm sure there are a few good eggs buried under all the bad apples, that really just shows how screwed up the system is.

That said, I will certainly agree that the system is broken all to hell. Part of the problem isn't just that being corrupt helps you get elected, it's that we reward people who do anything it takes to get into power.
Click to expand...

Mostly because those are the people who get all the money to do all the advertising and can pay all the people to keep all the skeletons buried in the closet. Money buys elections, either illegally or, in most cases, perfectly legally because you can stick your face on every TV, bus, billboard and bumper sticker everyone sees. Name recognition is the name of the game and it takes money, usually from unsavory sources, to get it.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I really think unions get more blame than they deserve. I mean, they're not the only interest group that has too much money to spend. Businesses, developers, taxpayer groups, it's not just the unions.
Click to expand...

But they *ARE* a huge problem. Back in February when the California State Legislature was locked in session to work on the budget problem, they were forced to sleep in session. The only time they left the room was to go out in the hall and call their union bosses to find out how they ought to vote. The California Prison Guard union buys votes regularly and is almost solely responsible for the pathetic state of the California prison system. They want as many people in prison as they can so they have job security. SEIU demanded a contract where none of their 95,000+ members can ever be laid off or have pay or pension cuts for any reason.

The unions in California are about as close to criminal organizations as you can get, a lot of them cross the line but have so many politicians and judges in their pockets, they can do so with immunity.
 
Cephus said:
A single example does not make a rule. If you can only come up with one, and I'm sure there are a few good eggs buried under all the bad apples, that really just shows how screwed up the system is.
Click to expand...

Actually, when you make a statement that strongly implies or explicitly states an opinion about an entire group of people, all it takes is a sample of one to prove you wrong.

That's why broad generalizations are bad, m'kay?

Cephus said:
Mostly because those are the people who get all the money to do all the advertising and can pay all the people to keep all the skeletons buried in the closet. Money buys elections, either illegally or, in most cases, perfectly legally because you can stick your face on every TV, bus, billboard and bumper sticker everyone sees. Name recognition is the name of the game and it takes money, usually from unsavory sources, to get it.
Click to expand...

That's more or less true today, but even so it's changing. Between the merging of news and entertainment, the emergence of the Internet as a platform for political movements, and the conversion of our voting systems to networked computers which can be hacked easily, it's not going to be that way for much longer...
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Actually, when you make a statement that strongly implies or explicitly states an opinion about an entire group of people, all it takes is a sample of one to prove you wrong.

That's why broad generalizations are bad, m'kay?
Click to expand...

But we can only operate in broad terms, we can't separate the good apples and apply a set of rules and then the bad apples and have an entirely different set of rules that they have to abide by. We need a single set that is going to cause the system to work in the best way possible and serve the greatest good possible. If 99% of the system is bad apples and the greatest good is to get rid of the bad apples as fast as possible, then the 1% good apples getting swept off to the dustbin as well is a natural consequence. Until we can get mostly good apples in the system, it's the only rational way to handle the situation.
 
Cephus said:
But they *ARE* a huge problem. Back in February when the California State Legislature was locked in session to work on the budget problem, they were forced to sleep in session. The only time they left the room was to go out in the hall and call their union bosses to find out how they ought to vote.
Click to expand...

I'm highly skeptical of this. Got proof?

The California Prison Guard union buys votes regularly and is almost solely responsible for the pathetic state of the California prison system. They want as many people in prison as they can so they have job security. SEIU demanded a contract where none of their 95,000+ members can ever be laid off or have pay or pension cuts for any reason.
Click to expand...
I agree that unions have too much power, but I think you're overstating things. One important reason prisons are so fowled up is that politicians are afraid to show anything resembling reform of the prison system, or they'll be seen as "soft on crime" and voted out. And the government can always refuse union demands, and make them strike. It's how free market works.

The unions in California are about as close to criminal organizations as you can get, a lot of them cross the line but have so many politicians and judges in their pockets, they can do so with immunity.
Click to expand...

Uh huh... right... are they run by the Illumanati?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom