Oh, the joys of American politics...

[DukeOfYork 28]

I'm just going to have to disagree with those who are anti-term limits. I believe we need to have a revolving door and get some of the longer serving representatives/senators out (especially those accused of corruption on both sides of the aisle). They may service at different levels and be "career politicians", but at least they'll have less of a negative effect in places like Congress.

Forcing candidates only to use public funds might be a good thing to mix in as well. I've alwasy found it disturbing that some people will drop $20 million of their own fortune on a job that pays $180k/year.

Edited August 12, 2010 by DukeOfYork

[^_^ 5,021]

Forcing candidates only to use public funds might be a good thing to mix in as well.

Might be? Without that, you accomplish nothing. You may get your revolving door but everyone going through it will still fit the very profile you're so adamantly against.

[DukeOfYork 28]

Your vote can set term limits on any elected official.

I am going to do that this year, though it won't matter much. My reprentative, Tim Johnson, who is a Republican, initially ran in favor of term limits. He's now running for longer than he originally pledged. I'm a conservative, but I will vote for the D in this election out of principle.

Might be? Without that, you accomplish nothing. You may get your revolving door but everyone going through it will still fit the very profile you're so adamantly against.

How so?

Edited August 12, 2010 by DukeOfYork

[Peikko 1,575]

Publicly financed campaigns.

That's all you need to bust this mofo wide open. Term limits are an eyewash.

I completely agree with the publicly funded low budget campaigns, or at the very least severely limited campaign funding.

[^_^ 5,021]

How so?

If you want to people who aren't career politicians, you have to create the conditions that allows such a person to wage a viable campaign against moneyed interests. Public financing of campaigns is the only way to do that.

I completely agree with the publicly funded low budget campaigns, or at the very least severely limited campaign funding.

Well, the budgets won't be "low". Air time in media markets like NY and LA doesn't come cheap. But they will be equal.

[Ban Hammer 13,469]

I completely agree with the publicly funded low budget campaigns, or at the very least severely limited campaign funding.

i agree. when only the rich can afford to run, that will be all we have.

[Peikko 1,575]

If you want to people who aren't career politicians, you have to create the conditions that allows such a person to wage a viable campaign against moneyed interests. Public financing of campaigns is the only way to do that.

Well, the budgets won't be "low". Air time in media markets like NY and LA doesn't come cheap. But they will be equal.

The air media campaign ads are a bunch of ###### - no voter learns a thing from them and can well do without them.

[mawilson 2,133]

i agree. when only the rich can afford to run, that will be all we have.

I'm cool with that. When poor people get elected, all they do is line their own pockets.

[^_^ 5,021]

...no voter learns a thing from them and can well do without them.

Paul has already been anointed Emperor, sorry. You can be Emperor next month.

[Peikko 1,575]

I'm cool with that. When poor people get elected, all they do is line their own pockets.

Which is different to rich people how? If politicians are politicians to get rich or richer, we don't need them.

Paul has already been anointed Emperor, sorry. You can be Emperor next month.

I noticed that. I have no ambition to be an emperor, let alone one with new clothes. I am quite content to bicker from the sidelines

[mawilson 2,133]

Which is different to rich people how? If politicians are politicians to get rich or richer, we don't need them.

Meg Whitman is already a billionaire. Not a millionaire, Billionaire.

I doubt she's running to get richer.

[^_^ 5,021]

I have no ambition to be an emperor, let alone one with new clothes. I am quite content to bicker from the sidelines

So much talent, yet no ambition. Such a shame.

[Peikko 1,575]

Meg Whitman is already a billionaire. Not a millionaire, Billionaire.

I doubt she's running to get richer.

In her case I agree. She's not very likely to win because of the vested interests in CA. However, inversely, one can't conclude automatically that someone without a huge fortune is necessarily going to go into politics in order to get rich - that is a silly theory.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[^_^ 5,021]

She's not very likely to win...

The latest poll I've heard of had her in a statistical dead heat with Jerry Brown.

[mawilson 2,133]

In her case I agree. She's not very likely to win because of the vested interests in CA. However, inversely, one can't conclude automatically that someone without a huge fortune is necessarily going to go into politics in order to get rich - that is a silly theory.

A poor person is more likely to want to go into politics in order to get rich than a wealthy person.

If you accidentally leave your wallet someplace, a poor person is more likely to steal it than someone who's rich.