Has Trump Gone Too Far?

[SunsetBengal]

(08-07-2016, 07:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Term limits will not accomplish anything.

We will have all of the same problems with just a higher turnover rate.

I'm going to disagree with you, as I see it differently.  I predict that instituting Congressional term limits, along with doing away with the full salary for life policy; would cause the best and brightest to seek office for the honor of truly serving their constituents, rather than having people who direct their entire occupational focus toward being a career politician.  There should be no such thing as a "career politician".

[*wildcats forever*]

(08-08-2016, 02:59 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm going to disagree with you, as I see it differently.  I predict that instituting Congressional term limits, along with doing away with the full salary for life policy; would cause the best and brightest to seek office for the honor of truly serving their constituents, rather than having people who direct their entire occupational focus toward being a career politician.  There should be no such thing as a "career politician".

Bless you, Chris. Let's go make this happen !! 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-07-2016, 02:31 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Trump has no chance. There are plenty fox news and infowars fanatics that will support him at all costs. But that isnt enough.

There is only like 3 black people, a couple mexicans, 1 muslim, and 5% of women that will vote for him.

This reminds me of the British idiots i saw that said they voted for Brexit but didnt really want it to happen. Making Trump the nominee was/is a total party embarrassment. I guess people thought it would be cool to vote for Trump. And now there is no chance their party wins the white house.

Who says that the Media?
Don't believe everything the Media tells you.

Talk to Legal immigrants, you'll find that they are supportive of Trump as well. They are against Amnesty. Their reason? They did it the right way, and so should everyone else, otherwise you shouldn't be here.

[BFritz21]

(08-08-2016, 04:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Who says that the Media?
Don't believe everything the Media tells you.

Talk to Legal immigrants, you'll find that they are supportive of Trump as well. They are against Amnesty. Their reason? They did it the right way, and so should everyone else, otherwise you shouldn't be here.

Exactly.  

Everyone calls Trump racist for that and the Democrats sit on that like he's a dictator worse than Hitler.  He wants to do things the right way and doesn't want to give free handouts, which is the Democratic way.

[Benton]

(08-08-2016, 02:59 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm going to disagree with you, as I see it differently.  I predict that instituting Congressional term limits, along with doing away with the full salary for life policy; would cause the best and brightest to seek office for the honor of truly serving their constituents, rather than having people who direct their entire occupational focus toward being a career politician.  There should be no such thing as a "career politician".

To the bold, I agree.

And I do think term limits would help. No one approach would cure all the corruption, but term limits, campaign finance reform and instituting some kind of public service component would — in my opinion — go a long way to  fixing the problem.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 02:59 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I'm going to disagree with you, as I see it differently.  I predict that instituting Congressional term limits, along with doing away with the full salary for life policy; would cause the best and brightest to seek office for the honor of truly serving their constituents, rather than having people who direct their entire occupational focus toward being a career politician.  There should be no such thing as a "career politician".

This makes no sense.  There is no other profession on earth where you get better quality people by paying less.  

Right now the system is about buying elections.  If that is not fixed then it doesn't matter how often they turnover. We are still going to have people get elected based on money.

Take the money out of the system and the two party system will not be in control.  Take the money out of the system and elected officials will not be owned by the people who pay for their elections.  term limits does nothting to fix these problems.

And what happens if you finally do find a great politician?  Why kick him out of office based on term limits?

[NATI BENGALS]

(08-08-2016, 04:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Who says that the Media?
Don't believe everything the Media tells you.

Talk to Legal immigrants, you'll find that they are supportive of Trump as well. They are against Amnesty. Their reason? They did it the right way, and so should everyone else, otherwise you shouldn't be here.

I thought it was pretty obvious i wasnt posting definite numbers. My point is he is going to get crushed percentage wise when it comes to those particular voters. He wont get the majority of any of those demographics.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 04:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Talk to Legal immigrants, you'll find that they are supportive of Trump as well. They are against Amnesty. Their reason? They did it the right way, and so should everyone else, otherwise you shouldn't be here.

I have actually talked to legal immigrants and they do not support Trump.  In fact all the ones I have spoken to say that immigration rules are too expensive and complicated, and Trump wants to make it even harder for legal immigrants to come to the United States.

[Benton]

(08-08-2016, 07:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This makes no sense.  There is no other profession on earth where you get better quality people by paying less.  

Right now the system is about buying elections.  If that is not fixed then it doesn't matter how often they turnover. We are still going to have people get elected based on money.

Take the money out of the system and the two party system will not be in control.  Take the money out of the system and elected officials will not be owned by the people who pay for their elections.  term limits does nothting to fix these problems.

And what happens if you finally do find a great politician?  Why kick him out of office based on term limits?

I work with volunteers every day for different things. Youth sports, Wounded Warriors, Aging Council, 4-H, Build A Bed, etc. Almost all the people involved volunteer their time and do some great things. I also work with people who sometimes get paid to provide very similar services. I can't say many of those who do it as a job do it much better than those who do it because they love to. It's what drives them.

Sometimes we do have that in politics. We have people who aren't doing it for the check and perks, instead working to make their communities (either local or state) a better place because they want that, but I don't think that's the norm any more.

Term limits aren't the be all end all, but neither is finance reform. It's impossible to take the money completely out of the picture. You may not have corps and individuals donating directly to a candidate, but that doesn't stop them from doing business with a candidate's company, with a candidate's family's company, etc. You can't legislate away a company donating money to the same school where gov. Whatshisname's kids go.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 07:35 PM)Benton Wrote: I work with volunteers every day for different things. Youth sports, Wounded Warriors, Aging Council, 4-H, Build A Bed, etc. Almost all the people involved volunteer their time and do some great things. I also work with people who sometimes get paid to provide very similar services. I can't say many of those who do it as a job do it much better than those who do it because they love to. It's what drives them.

Sometimes we do have that in politics. We have people who aren't doing it for the check and perks, instead working to make their communities (either local or state) a better place because they want that, but I don't think that's the norm any more.

Term limits aren't the be all end all, but neither is finance reform. It's impossible to take the money completely out of the picture. You may not have corps and individuals donating directly to a candidate, but that doesn't stop them from doing business with a candidate's company, with a candidate's family's company, etc. You can't legislate away a company donating money to the same school where gov. Whatshisname's kids go.

This logic still fails.

If there are people willing to work in politics for lower pay why would they refuse to do it for higher pay.

Of all the volunteers you have worked with how many would refuse to do the same work for a lot of pay?

[McC]

If you're going to get the money out of politics, you have to get it all. It can't just be campaign money. You'd have to get lobby money out of it too and that will never happen. That's why people are career politicians, because it is so damn profitable.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 08:20 PM)McC Wrote: If you're going to get the money out of politics, you have to get it all.  It can't just be campaign money.  You'd have to get lobby money out of it too and that will never happen.  That's why people are career politicians, because it is so damn profitable.

Lobbyist do not give money to politicians.  They give money to their campaign funds.

[McC]

(08-08-2016, 08:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Lobbyist do not give money to politicians.  They give money to their campaign funds.

Please.  Give me a break.  Even if we pretend they don't hand over cash just for the sake of argument, what about all the wining and dining and cruises and junkets and favors and hookers and what not?  That couldn't buy influence from anybody ever, could it?

You really do come off as a babe in the woods sometimes.

[Benton]

(08-08-2016, 07:39 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This logic still fails.

If there are people willing to work in politics for lower pay why would they refuse to do it for higher pay.

Of all the volunteers you have worked with how many would refuse to do the same work for a lot of pay?

That's a jump. It's not that they won't do it, it's that there's competition for it. Well funded competition for guy's who stand to make a lot.

Candidate A: Qualified, dedicated, has a background that provides him with a litany of things and ways to fix them. And he does it for little to no money.

Candidate B: Qualified, personable and has a giant campaign contribution list.

Who gets elected?

There's a lot involved in why elections are screwed up. Campaign finance and career politicians share a near equal amount of the blame. After all, as someone very intelligent once said,

Quote:Right now the system is about buying elections.  If that is not fixed then it doesn't matter how often they turnover. We are still going to have people get elected based on money.... Take the money out of the system and elected officials will not be owned by the people who pay for their elections.

Which I agree with, but it's not enough to take out the financing and contributions because — as I said earlier — you can't ever take out all of it. You can't take out indirect benefits. So you have to look at ways to change the system to encourage less participation by those only looking at padding their bank account. Just changing the way they get bribed does nothing to encourage participation by people who don't feel like thy have a chance at winning.

[Benton]

(08-08-2016, 08:21 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Lobbyist do not give money to politicians.  They give money to their campaign funds.

Eh, it varies. The first one on a Google search.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/tim-kaine-virginia-veep-mcdonnell-clinton-224888

Gifts are defined differently from state to state. One state may take no issue with putting up an elected official and footing his bill for a vacation; others are more strict about it.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(08-08-2016, 07:20 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I thought it was pretty obvious i wasnt posting definite numbers. My point is he is going to get crushed percentage wise when it comes to those particular voters. He wont get the majority of any of those demographics.

Per the media yes.

(08-08-2016, 07:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have actually talked to legal immigrants and they do not support Trump.  In fact all the ones I have spoken to say that immigration rules are too expensive and complicated, and Trump wants to make it even harder for legal immigrants to come to the United States.

Lemme see, I went to 3 big parties this past weekend and met up with about 125 people, where over the majority are Legal Immigrants that have become USC's.

I only found about 3 people that plan to vote for Hillary and 1 for Johnson.

How many have you talked to? I've got some more parties coming up this weekend with some of the same and some different people.

Just cause I'm curious, what Nationality did the "people" you talked to come from? And are you sure they are legal?

[Bengalzona]

(08-08-2016, 08:33 PM)Benton Wrote:

That's a jump. It's not that they won't do it, it's that there's competition for it. Well funded competition for guy's who stand to make a lot.

Candidate A: Qualified, dedicated, has a background that provides him with a litany of things and ways to fix them. And he does it for little to no money.

Candidate B: Qualified, personable and has a giant campaign contribution list.

Who gets elected?

There's a lot involved in why elections are screwed up. Campaign finance and career politicians share a near equal amount of the blame. After all, as someone very intelligent once said,



Which I agree with, but it's not enough to take out the financing and contributions because — as I said earlier — you can't ever take out all of it. You can't take out indirect benefits. So you have to look at ways to change the system to encourage less participation by those only looking at padding their bank account. Just changing the way they get bribed does nothing to encourage participation by people who don't feel like thy have a chance at winning.

We have an interesting race for Maricopa County Sheriff's Office out here. The seven-time incumbent is "Sheriff Joe" Arpaio, nationally known for his pro-right ideologies. Sheriff Joe's warchest for the current election? Ten million... 83% of that from outside the state. The warchest for his Republican challenger in the primary? Thirty grand. His Democrat challenger in the main election, Penzone, is reported to have approximately one hundred and thirty grand.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/08/08/arpaio-raises-10m-tough-re-election-campaign/88400760/

For those people contributing to our local election from out of state, we'd like to say a big "F**k you". Penzone currently leads in the polling 45% to 42%. People like myself who formerly voted for Arpaio are turning away from him because of the outside influences. This is a local election, folks. If you want Sheriff Joe for a bigger office, take him. We are tired of him grandstanding for national issues to the detriment of his local office. Sheriff Joe was recently found in contempt of court for violating orders regarding a long-standing racial profiling case.

[Bengalzona]

(08-08-2016, 04:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Who says that the Media?
Don't believe everything the Media tells you.

Talk to Legal immigrants, you'll find that they are supportive of Trump as well. They are against Amnesty. Their reason? They did it the right way, and so should everyone else, otherwise you shouldn't be here.

You are partially correct. It all depends upon where the legal immigrant is from. Many of the legal immigrants from Europe do tend to be pro-Trump, which has a lot to do with their opinions on the European refugee situation. Legal immigrants from other places are more divided, similar to naturally-born citizens.

[fredtoast]

(08-08-2016, 11:48 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Lemme see, I went to 3 big parties this past weekend and met up with about 125 people, where over the majority are Legal Immigrants that have become USC's.

I only found about 3 people that plan to vote for Hillary and 1 for Johnson.

How many have you talked to? I've got some more parties coming up this weekend with some of the same and some different people.

Just cause I'm curious, what Nationality did the "people" you talked to come from? And are you sure they are legal?

All of the legal immigrants that I have discussed this with have been from Mexico/South America.

Where were the people you talked to from?  How do you know they are all legal?

And what the hell kind of parties do you go to where most of the people are immigrants and you speak in large groups about who they are going to vote for?  I have never been to a single party where I talked to over forty people in depth about their immigration status and who they are going to vote for, yet you did it three nights in a row?  Who was hosting these parties?  Who is bringing all of these people together?  I am guess that the selection proces for these parties ensures that there is not a wide variaty of legal immigrants in the crowd.  Kind of like the way FoxNews brings together its focus groups to prove what they want to prove.

[Rotobeast]

(08-09-2016, 09:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: All of the legal immigrants that I have discussed this with have been from Mexico/South America.

Where were the people you talked to from?  How do you know they are all legal?

And what the hell kind of parties do you go to where most of the people are immigrants and you speak in large groups about who they are going to vote for?  I have never been to a single party where I talked to over forty people in depth about their immigration status and who they are going to vote for, yet you did it three nights in a row?  Who was hosting these parties?  Who is bringing all of these people together?  I am guess that the selection proces for these parties ensures that there is not a wide variaty of legal immigrants in the crowd.  Kind of like the way FoxNews brings together its focus groups to prove what they want to prove.

Apparently you've never been to a Home Depot parking lot party.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk