PDA

View Full Version : Elections Why should Pat Roberts continue holding his Senate seat?


irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:42 AM
I'm just curious.

I'm curious because everyone wants change. Republicans want change. Democrats want change. It's clear that both sides want change as evidenced by McCain's adoption of that platform. My question is if everyone wants some degree of change, why are we continuing to put forth the same elected officials.

Why shouldn't we try someone new?



(FTR, I wish Congress had term limits of some sort. Seems stupid that they don't.)

Programmer
09-16-2008, 10:47 AM
I'm just curious.

I'm curious because everyone wants change. Republicans want change. Democrats want change. It's clear that both sides want change as evidenced by McCain's adoption of that platform. My question is if everyone wants some degree of change, why are we continuing to put forth the same elected officials.

Why shouldn't we try someone new?



(FTR, I wish Congress had term limits of some sort. Seems stupid that they don't.)

Term limits? Why that's un-American.

The only bug you have about Roberts is the (R). What has he done that you do not approve of? (other than being republican?)

You are a party line voter by your standard commentary. Why would anyone think you would support Roberts?

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:50 AM
Term limits? Why that's un-American.

The only bug you have about Roberts is the (R). What has he done that you do not approve of? (other than being republican?)

You are a party line voter by your standard commentary. Why would anyone think you would support Roberts?

So you would rescind term limits on the President?

Iowanian
09-16-2008, 10:52 AM
Cool.

Throw him out the same day as Ted Kennedy.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 10:57 AM
Cool.

Throw him out the same day as Ted Kennedy.

So you support term limits?

ChiTown
09-16-2008, 10:58 AM
So you support term limits?

ABSOFKNLUTELY!

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:00 AM
I guess this leads me to another question:

If the House was supposed to be based on population and population has increased, shouldn't the number of representatives increase as well?

Programmer
09-16-2008, 11:01 AM
So you would rescind term limits on the President?

No.

Term limits is a concept I've believed in for years. No more than 6 years for any elected official. Think of the money it would save in retirements alone. As it stands any senator or congressman that in in office for more than 6 years gets a very lucritive retirement package. Term limits would effectively end that and save us dollars. I have heard, not verified, that they all get medical coverage for the rest of their lives as well. That should stop if it is indeed in their retirement package.

These people either go into office rich or manage to come out of office rich, they don't really need the retirement package IMO.

Unfortunately, we will never have term limits for those positions because the people that would have to make it law are the ones that are sitting in those seats.

Programmer
09-16-2008, 11:02 AM
I guess this leads me to another question:

If the House was supposed to be based on population and population has increased, shouldn't the number of representatives increase as well?

Why? Representative is an extremely loose term, they don't really represent the people, they represent special interests, to hell with the people.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 11:05 AM
Why? Representative is an extremely loose term, they don't really represent the people, they represent special interests, to hell with the people.

Yeah, but that doesn't solve the problem that the House was supposed to be based on population and currently they don't match up as they should.

It went from something like 1 rep for 300000 constituents to 1 rep for 600000 constituents. Shouldn't we add reps to help compensate?

bkkcoh
09-16-2008, 11:05 AM
So you would rescind term limits on the President?

a lot of people would only do this if it was BC that was the president, not a snow balls chance in hell for Bush, either one of them. I, for one, don't want to abolish the term limits for the president.

Term limits? Why that's un-American.

The only bug you have about Roberts is the (R). What has he done that you do not approve of? (other than being republican?)

You are a party line voter by your standard commentary. Why would anyone think you would support Roberts?

I would love to have term limits, but by the electorate, not constitutionally. But that wont happen. Wasn't the position in the congress be only a temporary position, not a life-time job. I also don't think they should be able to get a pension either for reason already mentioned.

Stinger
09-16-2008, 11:12 AM
Yeah, but that doesn't solve the problem that the House was supposed to be based on population and currently they don't match up as they should.

It went from something like 1 rep for 300000 constituents to 1 rep for 600000 constituents. Shouldn't we add reps to help compensate?

I understand the premise but can you imagine the gridlock in the House if all those Representatives were there. There would be nothing coming out of the House, no laws, taxes, impositions and nothing would get done!!!!! ........ Ok, hang on a minute I need to rethink this, you may be on to something here.

alnorth
09-16-2008, 11:21 AM
So you would rescind term limits on the President?

I would. I understand why people like term limits on a gut emotional level, but intellectually I strongly disagree with term limits of any kind. If that means Clinton would have served 4 or 5 terms, so be it.

To me, term limits basically means that we are arrogant enough to say that the people have stupidly fallen in love with a candidate, so we are going to forbid them from voting for that guy again. Thats what term limits are: a restriction on the american people to vote for who they believe is the best person for the job.

WilliamTheIrish
09-16-2008, 11:31 AM
Being a representative was never supposed to be a career. It shouldn't be allowed to be a career. If we real;ly want term limits, reduce the salary to 1960's level and watch the noobs be sworn in.

jidar
09-16-2008, 11:35 AM
Term limits? Why that's un-American.

The only bug you have about Roberts is the (R). What has he done that you do not approve of? (other than being republican?)

You are a party line voter by your standard commentary. Why would anyone think you would support Roberts?

He supports the Patriot Act and wants to loosen restrictions on wiretapping. He's anti civil liberties.

He was tapped by president Bush to lead the investigations into the administrations misuse of the Intelligence community leading up to the Iraq war. Of course it was as a cover, and he stalled and hampered the process as much as he could.

The committee in question has been called "The senate cover-up committee" because of these actions and the NY Times says he is primarily "doing the presidents dirty work."

Warrior5
09-16-2008, 11:36 AM
Cool.

Throw him out the same day as Ted Kennedy.

Agreed... Roberts, Kennedy, Byrd; party doesn't matter.

bkkcoh
09-16-2008, 11:44 AM
Being a representative was never supposed to be a career. It shouldn't be allowed to be a career. If we real;ly want term limits, reduce the salary to 1960's level and watch the noobs be sworn in.

Good idea!!!!!!!:clap:

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 12:01 PM
I would. I understand why people like term limits on a gut emotional level, but intellectually I strongly disagree with term limits of any kind. If that means Clinton would have served 4 or 5 terms, so be it.

To me, term limits basically means that we are arrogant enough to say that the people have stupidly fallen in love with a candidate, so we are going to forbid them from voting for that guy again. Thats what term limits are: a restriction on the american people to vote for who they believe is the best person for the job.

Honestly, do you agree with the bold?

Being a representative was never supposed to be a career. It shouldn't be allowed to be a career. If we real;ly want term limits, reduce the salary to 1960's level and watch the noobs be sworn in.

I am in full agreement, except, that as has already been pointed out, no one will legislate that as they'd have to legislate against their own careers.

alnorth
09-16-2008, 12:03 PM
Honestly, do you agree with the bold?

Why else would we be so arrogant as to collectively look at the american people and say "look, I know that you all think this guy is the best for the job, but we know better than to allow you that choice. Pick the 2nd or 3rd-best guy for the job instead."

The concept of term limits is just stupid and elitist to me.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 12:04 PM
I understand the premise but can you imagine the gridlock in the House if all those Representatives were there. There would be nothing coming out of the House, no laws, taxes, impositions and nothing would get done!!!!! ........ Ok, hang on a minute I need to rethink this, you may be on to something here.

Well, not necessarily. On the one hand, you'd have more people in the room, but do you honestly think that less work will be done than already is being done?

I mean Congress takes recesses all the damn time. It's almost hardly a job.


This springs to mind an idea. What if to compensate, instead of piling all those people into one room, we have Part A and Part B which together form the House. That way, we still get the representation via population as it should be, but while one is in recession, the other can be working. Food for thought.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 12:06 PM
Why else would we be so arrogant as to collectively look at the american people and say "look, I know that you all think this guy is the best for the job, but we know better than to allow you that choice. Pick the 2nd or 3rd-best guy for the job instead."

The concept of term limits is just stupid and elitist to me.

In some ways, I agree. But in some ways it must end. Look at the Bush. The easy solution is to argue that people wouldn't want term limits for Clinton. The same people are happy as hell that Bush is over. And the same people that were happy that Clinton is out are the same people mad now that Bush is ending.

It does come off as stupid and elitist but it also comes off as rational and non-partisan. That is, it prevents monarchies and oligarchies while also not specifically putting down either party. If that makes sense...

Programmer
09-16-2008, 12:08 PM
He supports the Patriot Act and wants to loosen restrictions on wiretapping. He's anti civil liberties.

He was tapped by president Bush to lead the investigations into the administrations misuse of the Intelligence community leading up to the Iraq war. Of course it was as a cover, and he stalled and hampered the process as much as he could.

The committee in question has been called "The senate cover-up committee" because of these actions and the NY Times says he is primarily "doing the presidents dirty work."

Do you have any proof of your allegations, or is it just opinion?

I support the Patriot Act, it has been a service to the people of the country. Civil liberties of whom? If you live in the U.S. and receive a call from a known (or mistaken by familiar name) terrorist it seems prudent that the call be monitored.

The NY Times is not objective when talking about republicans in any way shape or form.

What proof do you have of any of your allegations? All you have is a liberal media outlet saying what they want us all to believe. It has apparently worked with you, hence your post.

ChiTown
09-16-2008, 12:08 PM
In some ways, I agree. But in some ways it must end. Look at the Bush. The easy solution is to argue that people wouldn't want term limits for Clinton. The same people are happy as hell that Bush is over. And the same people that were happy that Clinton is out are the same people mad now that Bush is ending.


wtf?

alnorth
09-16-2008, 12:10 PM
In some ways, I agree. But in some ways it must end. Look at the Bush. The easy solution is to argue that people wouldn't want term limits for Clinton. The same people are happy as hell that Bush is over. And the same people that were happy that Clinton is out are the same people mad now that Bush is ending.

It does come off as stupid and elitist but it also comes off as rational and non-partisan. That is, it prevents monarchies and oligarchies while also not specifically putting down either party. If that makes sense...

You contradict yourself and reinforce the reason why term limits are so arbitrary and stupid. Bush is hardly a justification for term limits, because he would be annihilated this year. I doubt he would have even won his own primary.

Lets pretend for some reason Bush is able to convince the people to elect him to a 3rd term. Fine, so be it. Either we trust the people to elect the president or we dont, if they want Bush for a 3rd term or Clinton for a 3rd term, then who the hell are you or I to tell them no?

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 12:13 PM
You contradict yourself and reinforce the reason why term limits are so arbitrary and stupid. Bush is hardly a justification for term limits, because he would be annihilated this year. I doubt he would have even won his own primary.

Really? I think he would have easily passed his primary. Alas, neither can no for sure.


Lets pretend for some reason Bush is able to convince the people to elect him to a 3rd term. Fine, so be it. Either we trust the people to elect the president or we dont, if they want Bush for a 3rd term or Clinton for a 3rd term, then who the hell are you or I to tell them no?

Fair enough. So, I take it you are against term limits throughout government not just the Presidency?

jidar
09-16-2008, 12:14 PM
Do you have any proof of your allegations, or is it just opinion?

I support the Patriot Act, it has been a service to the people of the country. Civil liberties of whom? If you live in the U.S. and receive a call from a known (or mistaken by familiar name) terrorist it seems prudent that the call be monitored.

The NY Times is not objective when talking about republicans in any way shape or form.

What proof do you have of any of your allegations? All you have is a liberal media outlet saying what they want us all to believe. It has apparently worked with you, hence your post.

You program in BASIC don't you?

alnorth
09-16-2008, 12:17 PM
Fair enough. So, I take it you are against term limits throughout government not just the Presidency?

Correct, as long as the people are given an opportunity to vote them out with sufficient frequency. 2 years for house, 4 years for POTUS, and 6 for senate is probably fine, though I wouldnt object to reducing the senate term to 4 years.

I am fine with lifetime appointments for judges because that position requires independent legal expertise and must remain free of political influence and the whims of the mob.

tiptap
09-16-2008, 12:24 PM
There is a big difference in the Executive and Legislative Branch of Government. Limiting the Presidential terms makes sense in that he is CIC and represents almost unilaterally that equal branch of Government. The Legislative Branch can't be so. The ability to switch up majority vote on issue precludes that. Therefore term limits are not as necessary.

alnorth
09-16-2008, 12:31 PM
There is a big difference in the Executive and Legislative Branch of Government. Limiting the Presidential terms makes sense in that he is CIC and represents almost unilaterally that equal branch of Government. The Legislative Branch can't be so. The ability to switch up majority vote on issue precludes that. Therefore term limits are not as necessary.

That may "sound right" as an ideal, until you get to the issue that you are telling the people that they cant vote for who they want. Again, who the hell are you or I to tell them no?

If someone is a poor commander in chief or is abusing their power, let the people vote them out. If the people do not want to vote out the president, then they collectively do not agree with those who say they should be term-limited out. Fundamentally, term limits is me saying I dont trust the people to make the right choice, so I want to limit the damage they can foolishly inflict on themselves.

tiptap
09-16-2008, 12:38 PM
That may "sound right" as an ideal, until you get to the issue that you are telling the people that they cant vote for who they want. Again, who the hell are you or I to tell them no?

If someone is a poor commander in chief or is abusing their power, let the people vote them out. If the people do not want to vote out the president, then they collectively do not agree with those who say they should be term-limited out. Fundamentally, term limits is me saying I dont trust the people to make the right choice, so I want to limit the damage they can foolishly inflict on themselves.

This assumes that the people's vote will win out over an abundance of years to pay surrogates down the line in the executive branch. The biggest fear of the Founding Fathers was too powerful of executive since it represents the monarchy to the parliament model they had from England. And when you look around the world it tends that way. I do agree that France or England show governments that remain democratic and still allow extended Executive possibilities. But I am not making the case that the Executive Branch should be term limited. I am saying that the Legislative Branch is particularly insulated from any argument against the people's wishes.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 12:41 PM
That may "sound right" as an ideal, until you get to the issue that you are telling the people that they cant vote for who they want. Again, who the hell are you or I to tell them no?

If someone is a poor commander in chief or is abusing their power, let the people vote them out. If the people do not want to vote out the president, then they collectively do not agree with those who say they should be term-limited out. Fundamentally, term limits is me saying I dont trust the people to make the right choice, so I want to limit the damage they can foolishly inflict on themselves.

Then do you think the electoral college is the epitome of arrogance as well?

Iowanian
09-16-2008, 01:45 PM
So you support term limits?

Absolutely.

I'm thinking either 2 terms, or 1 term of 6 years with half offsetting every 3 years (some new, some 3yr experience).

I'd rather see people in office doing their job insted of concerning themselves more with re-election.

You want to move up in office? Great....do a good job for 6 years.


I also don't believe anyone who only works for one employer for 6-12 years deserves a lifetime retirement plan.....Politicians should get 5% put into a mutual fund for retirement like most of the rest of working Americans.

whoman69
09-16-2008, 03:03 PM
Yeah, but that doesn't solve the problem that the House was supposed to be based on population and currently they don't match up as they should.

It went from something like 1 rep for 300000 constituents to 1 rep for 600000 constituents. Shouldn't we add reps to help compensate?

Didn't we have this conversation before? Putting more people into Congress invites more abuse than the current system that we have. It would also take any power away from smaller states, which was a key component in the balance of power that the framers of the consitution were looking for when they made the two houses of Congress. Most of the extra seats would come from the big states.

alnorth
09-16-2008, 03:12 PM
Then do you think the electoral college is the epitome of arrogance as well?

It was probably fine for its time when it really was incredibly hard to get any news of the world beyond the village limits. Now, its only inefficient to the extent that we elect people to cast the EV's. I'd just reform the electoral college to take out the middleman and award the EV's directly, but I would definitely not go to a national popular vote.

alnorth
09-16-2008, 03:17 PM
Didn't we have this conversation before? Putting more people into Congress invites more abuse than the current system that we have.

I'd argue that having fewer (thus more powerful) reps who have to represent a gigantic number of people is more vulnerable to abuse. I'd expand the house to well over 1,000 reps.

It would also take any power away from smaller states, which was a key component in the balance of power that the framers of the consitution were looking for when they made the two houses of Congress. Most of the extra seats would come from the big states.

I disagree, this isnt like the electoral college, we are just talking about using a smaller diviser here with the math. With the current system, a small state is equally likely to be screwed as it is helped. For a tiny population it is helped by the minimum 1 rep, but if it has a pretty decent population but not QUITE enough to get that 2nd rep, then the small state is hurt. Overall, it probably cancels out. Its not the same as the built-in statistical bias in the electoral college with each state having 2 extra, which is worth more to small states.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 03:21 PM
Didn't we have this conversation before? Putting more people into Congress invites more abuse than the current system that we have. It would also take any power away from smaller states, which was a key component in the balance of power that the framers of the consitution were looking for when they made the two houses of Congress. Most of the extra seats would come from the big states.

:spock:

That was the whole point of the two house system. That's how they designed it. One house favors population and other is equal say.

That's basic history.

irishjayhawk
09-16-2008, 03:22 PM
It was probably fine for its time when it really was incredibly hard to get any news of the world beyond the village limits. Now, its only inefficient to the extent that we elect people to cast the EV's. I'd just reform the electoral college to take out the middleman and award the EV's directly, but I would definitely not go to a national popular vote.

Why not?

Isn't any middle man inherently an elitist entity?

Jenson71
09-16-2008, 04:14 PM
We should go back to when Senators were not chosen by the people.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-16-2008, 05:52 PM
I think DC should have 2 Senate seats :D

***SPRAYER
09-16-2008, 05:54 PM
Charlie Rangel is awesome.

Chief Faithful
09-16-2008, 05:57 PM
We should go back to when Senators were not chosen by the people.

It was changed because too much corruption found its way into the Senate. Instead I favor term limits in the House to get rid of career politicians so they can do a better job of serving their real purpose of representing their local population. Career politicians in the House are too beholden to special interest groups.

***SPRAYER
09-16-2008, 06:41 PM
Instead I favor term limits .


Here's the catch---

Career politicians have to vote for term limits.

:)