Options
Voting out ALL Incumbents
know1
Posts: 6,761
I think there should be a movement started to impose term limits on politicians since they are unwilling to do so.
Therefore, I took some time this morning to make a list of all incumbents running on my local ballot and I plan to either vote against or not vote for them (if they are unopposed).
Anybody else with me?
Therefore, I took some time this morning to make a list of all incumbents running on my local ballot and I plan to either vote against or not vote for them (if they are unopposed).
Anybody else with me?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Godfather.
vote for who you want. but if someone has absolutely no record to stand by or defend i will not be voting for them...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
They don't vote on ALL senate and house seats in each election. They are cycled in so only 1/3 of them would be new. I think that's just fine. An infusion of new ideas can only be a good thing.
I think knowing that you're only going to serve 1 term would go along way toward suppressing the ability to be bought by special interests.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i think a one term limit would be impossible. how can you pick a speaker of the house, which is usually the most experienced rep in the party of the majority when everyone only gets one term? i would favor maybe a 3 term limit, that way they can potentially work with different presidents to pass legislation. but this won't happen, what senator or congressman will vote in favor in limiting the number of terms they can serve? that would be like voting to cut your own job after a certin number of years.
edit to change the word "president" to "majority"....i don't know what is with me making these mistakes this morning... :oops:
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
What most people in these types of movements really mean is:
Vote out all incumbents except if the incumbent from my party wins the primary, then I'll unhappily vote for him in the general election...
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
The House is 100% up for grabs every two years, the Senate has the 1/3 potential turnover. I say, vote them all out. I really couldn't care less about "experience" at this point. Look at what experience has gotten us thus far. The longer these people stay in, the greater the chance of corruption. If nothing else, it is a statement from the American people to throw them all out-- a revolution without a shot being fired simply stating that all of Congress as a collective is FIRED. Unfortunately, this country cannot get behind it-- right now, firing all incumbents translates to switching the Congress to the minority party which is currently the Republican Party. Ideally, the people of this nation should fire both parties and agree to vote only Green Party or Libertarian, which would be like voting for consciense injected into the two mainline parties.
Even if congress never addresses term limits, I'm going with this as a standard and any candidate that fails to meet this guideline will not receive my vote.
But if we get into a pattern of voting out the incumbents, then perhaps a candidate from the Green or Libertarian parties would feel they have a legitimate shot to win. I'm not saying you HAVE to vote R if a D is the incumbent. Just don't vote for the person currently occupying the seat.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Exactly! To hell with "experience". Experience doesn't want change, only votes and control. If experience has gotten us to where we currently are, then it is time for new blood.
I hear ya loud and clear. What I'm saying is, I think people are almost ready to get behind this idea as a movement right now-- I'd rather take it a step further and say that not only are the incumbents the problem, but their replacements from the same two party paradigm are likely to be a problem as well. It's simply another case where competition has essentially been made illegal here in America. Third party candidates have to jump through hoops to participate in debates and get on the ballot, and face lawsuits by the two mainline parties in the process. Legalize TRUE competition, and each and every one of these parties will be forced to better serve their constituents.
that is exactly how it should be. there has to be a constitutional amendment for term limits to take place so I just don't see it happening unfortunately. If the president can have term limits I don't understand how the framers missed including congressional term limits. Must not have been a thought that someone would want to participate in government for that long.
I just hope that after all this excitement for a group like the tea party and all their ferver about holding reps acct that they remember it the next time the people they voted in are up for re-election and hold them accountable.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The framers missed term limits for the president as well-- more freedom to choose, really. Two term presidency was precedent because that's what George Washington did-- He could have run for a third term and probably won but chose not to. It wasn't until FDR that a president served more than two terms (I think), and I believe a constitutional amendment disables any president from doing it ever again.
There shouldn't be any rules regards to term limits. The voters should set those themselves-- when your representatives suck and/or are complete corporate whores (and there's a 95% chance that your guy/gal does), vote him or her out. Simple. All it requires is that the public pays the smallest amount of attention to how their elected officials govern. That being said, I personally am not going to sneeze at term limits being set for Congress. I am for more choice and less laws, but under the current system where fraud and theft are practically legalized for politicians it makes sense to limit the amount of time where they are in positions of power to take money from special interests.
Also, I don't know how many other people running are seriously talking about term limits, but I know that Rand Paul mentions them everytime he has an interview. If there were ever a place to hold him accountable for his campaign promises, this is one of the big ones.
they are looney tunes right now.
Don't like the Tea Party? I think the best thing you could do is to claim it as your own. Every single one of them (us?) has done so for themselves-- some people see it as a joke because there seems to be no unity. I don't think that's entirely true, but the fact is, the "movement" is still very open to interpretation. Every single one of us has at least one serious beef with how our money is being spent-- I believe that each and every one of us must have at least one major moral dilemma about our taxpayer money being used, to the point where if you really think about it, it sickens you. I'm not talking about non-use of taxpayer money at all-- just think about it: It is used against the environment, or for war, or simply used at a rate that steals unequal value from everyone at the same time, among a million other things-- somewhere in there, is some program, or grant, or privilege given with your money that you know to be against your being. Why not focus on one area where government action takes money to subsidize something terribly wrong, and try to eliminate it? Addition by subtraction. Why couldn't environmentalists agree to call themselves the (Green) Tea Party, and argue against government forcefully taking money from them to subsidize oil and ethanol instead of the same environmentalists pushing for money to have windmills built? The goal is no more special favors for any industry, and it's very black and white. What if you're against war? Push for spending to stop maintaining the overseas empire. Before choosing to spend money elsewhere in a system where competition is limited, why not use the momentum of a movement that is, if nothing else, all about cutting serious waste somewhere? Every one of us has our own opinions about what is not only wasteful, but morally wrong. We see the problems and convolutions associated with different groups of people using taxpayer money to push for laws and agencies that are morally "correct"... Guess what-- someone else doesn't believe it to be, and it's costing them. Before adding any more layers and confusion to our lives with excess government, why not form your own tea party against your taxes being spent on something terrible--specifically, things that rob others of their rights? There has to be other people out there who feel just as strongly about the same matter, and would work to abolish it from existence. After all, I honestly don't think the Tea Party is going away for quite a while. Nobody knows if it's Led Zeppelin or Britney Spears just yet, but I think it's going to continue to make the news till at least the 2012 election where these people running on this platform will have had to make good on their promises.
I like the way you think!
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Our government has gotten incredibly large and controlling...unbeknown to most of the population. This has happened at the expense of our freedoms.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Friendly all warm and snuggly.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)
Oh they are understood alright...Tradition.
Peace
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)