Tell em Rand...

[Bubblehead1980]

This is one of the best responses to a Presidential address I can recall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTBgNlojYyc

[Spiced_Rum]

Based on that speech means that there is a politician I could vote for. :Kaleun_Applaud: :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

[Bubblehead1980]

Based on that speech means that there is a politician I could vote for. :Kaleun_Applaud: :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:

Absolutely. I hope he does not change and is who he appears to be.Assuming he is like his father, he is the real deal.Definitely more polished than the elder Paul but that is needed to across the certain voters.

[Wolferz]

Rand Paul for president in 2016?

[AVGWarhawk]

Rand Paul for president in 2016?

I'll take Howdy Doody at this point.

[mapuc]

And whoever that's going to be your president in 2016, you probably going to hate him too. Just because he/she isn't what you had been expecting.

Markus

[Takeda Shingen]

I'm hoping for another D. I've gotten hooked on this stuff.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f221/farktacular/rtcan.jpg

[soopaman2]

I'm hoping for another D. I've gotten hooked on this stuff.

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f221/farktacular/rtcan.jpg

We should call that the Obammy can.

Great when you open it, but turns flat nearly instantly.

Another 4 years of Democrats would make for great trollery. :)

I saved that pic, and will use it in other forums, thank you sir. :D

[Armistead]

I would vote for Rand, hopefully he could beat Hillary. I think Rand could beat Hillary. Hillary should suffer from the Obama effect.

[Ducimus]

Well, the hardcore right had their chance, and failed. The hardcore left, is proving to be an equally spectacular failure in their own right. Currently i can't tell the difference between the two except the left likes to play the violin more then the right. Now, It's my understanding that Libertarians are aligned with the republican's because they have no other place to go in the two-faced monstrosity that is our two party system. In any event, i think we need a president that leans a bit towards Libertarianism and leans heavily towards non-interventionism, and it's long overdue we had such a president.

[Skybird]

The Fuhrer-cult about politicians and presidents shall come to an end. They are products of the system, and if elected, they have to deal with the same harsh reality like anyone else. With debts and interests like these, with dependencies on lobbies and on certain industry leaders like these, any US president has extremely limited freedom to act, if any. The louder the call for the right man at the top, the more certain it becomes that afterwards the disappointment again will be great.

The whole system - in the West, not just the US - is foul, and smells rotten. An occasional sober speech here and there does not change that. yes, in this 5 minutes-speech, Rand gives a sober impression, and I agree with what he says on the issue.

But that does not make me forgetting that he is just another politician. And by defintion that means he tries to tell people what he thinks increases his chances to get lifted by them, and will not tell them grim truths that would make sure he is not elected if speaking them out.

Democracy is voter bribery. People want to get bribed and betrayed. And sometimes the bribery lies not fin cial payments and tax gifts, but in giving a certain appearance: Kennedy on mind, or Reagan. So again: this younger Rand is just a politician, like his colleagues. Never forget that.

[AVGWarhawk]

I would vote for Rand, hopefully he could beat Hillary. I think Rand could beat Hillary. Hillary should suffer from the Obama effect.

The media would portray Rand as a right wing lunatic with a touch of bigot.

[soopaman2]

Well, the hardcore right had their chance, and failed. The hardcore left, is proving to be an equally spectacular failure in their own right. Currently i can't tell the difference between the two except the left likes to play the violin more then the right. Now, It's my understanding that Libertarians are aligned with the republican's because they have no other place to go in the two-faced monstrosity that is our two party system. In any event, i think we need a president that leans a bit towards Libertarianism and leans heavily towards non-interventionism, and it's long overdue we had such a president.


Something about this post made me agree, yet cringe at the same time.
Just how divisive we are, and how destructive it is.


My team will do this to your team, no one really listens to what they say, and anything they say is told to them by bosses.


A president, being told what to do by party bosses, or face ruination.

The problem is with politicians making this a lifelong occupation, rather than going back to their farms like Washington and Cincinattus did when their term was over.

Politician means public service, most of the a-holes think we should serve them, which is why we kicked Britain to the curb a few hundred years ago.

[Ducimus]

Something about this post made me agree, yet cringe at the same time.
Just how divisive we are, and how destructive it is.


My team will do this to your team, no one really listens to what they say, and anything they say is told to them by bosses.


A president, being told what to do by party bosses, or face ruination.

The problem is with politicians making this a lifelong occupation, rather than going back to their farms like Washington and Cincinattus did when their term was over.

Politician means public service, most of the a-holes think we should serve them, which is why we kicked Britain to the curb a few hundred years ago.

The idea of congressional term limits would be a fantastic start. We really do need to do away with career politicians. Until such time, I don't think much will change.

[soopaman2]

The idea of congressional term limits would be a fantastic start. We really do need to do away with career politicians. Until such time, I don't think much will change.

You are preachinig to the choir, right or left, you are screwed, as the same monetary backers fund both parties.

I hate to be so Nihilistic, but anything we do is meaningless, unless you net millions a year.

[Wolferz]

I'll take Howdy Doody at this point.

Buffalo Bob will pull his strings. I wonder who is pulling the strings on the current puppet?

One thing is for sure, he can't sneak up and punch Assad in the mouth if we all get between them.

[soopaman2]

No fun in that, they will only understand a nuke, or being left alone and ignored on the world stage.

Assad wants to keep his country, Putin wants to keep selling him weapons, why else would he "take care of it"

He lost Iraq and Afghanistan as weapon buyers, and is feeling the pinch.

All he has left is N korea and China to sell crap to kill Americans with.

Putin is as much a jihadist as Al Zarqawi and Bin Laden. He just smiles rather than spouting ALLAHU AKHBAR.

Maybe him and Mahmoud Ahma-need-a-job from Iran can conspire against us, while taking our money and goodwill.

[Bubblehead1980]

Buffalo Bob will pull his strings. I wonder who is pulling the strings on the current puppet?

One thing is for sure, he can't sneak up and punch Assad in the mouth if we all get between them.

The current string puller, well the main one, is GEORGE SOROS.

[Bubblehead1980]

The Fuhrer-cult about politicians and presidents shall come to an end. They are products of the system, and if elected, they have to deal with the same harsh reality like anyone else. With debts and interests like these, with dependencies on lobbies and on certain industry leaders like these, any US president has extremely limited freedom to act, if any. The louder the call for the right man at the top, the more certain it becomes that afterwards the disappointment again will be great.

The whole system - in the West, not just the US - is foul, and smells rotten. An occasional sober speech here and there does not change that. yes, in this 5 minutes-speech, Rand gives a sober impression, and I agree with what he says on the issue.

But that does not make me forgetting that he is just another politician. And by defintion that means he tries to tell people what he thinks increases his chances to get lifted by them, and will not tell them grim truths that would make sure he is not elected if speaking them out.

Democracy is voter bribery. People want to get bribed and betrayed. And sometimes the bribery lies not fin cial payments and tax gifts, but in giving a certain appearance: Kennedy on mind, or Reagan. So again: this younger Rand is just a politician, like his colleagues. Never forget that.


Our system has a lot of problems that need to and will be addressed but the core of it is a beautiful thing.I have noticed you critical of western political systems, democracies(US is a constitutional republic by the way or used to be) what other system do you propose? The others certainly do not work.The core of our system is a beautiful thing, just involves humans so it gets messy but can be fixed.

My optimism for Rand Paul is of cautious nature.One has to be careful and not let cynicism take over that they don't realize a good thing when its there and give it a chance. Ron Paul is one of the few principles politicians not controlled by special interests /The one thing Paul lacked was stage presence, he had and has the right message, principles, etc but lacks the delivery and unfortunately, half of the country are idiots who need the "stage presence" in order to get the message, they are just not intellectual enough to digest it.Rand Paul is much more polished and so far he has stuck to the principles and far as I no is not in bed with the interests and could see him staying the course. Paul knows what he is up against, sabotage from the "establishment GOP", the media, the democratic alinskyite machine and probably running against a woman who suck a lot of votes from women just because she is a woman, much as obma did the black vote.However, the country has dem fatigue and will have even more by 2016.Sure the loyal band of ignorant followers won't leave the "democratic plantation" (always loved the line by Herman Cain) but many of the middle of the road voters will be in play.Paul just has to tread carefully and not play into the narrative the media will try to push of him.More speeches like his response last night, he should be able to pull it off.I could see him trouncing Hillary in a debate.

Like I said, cautious optimism and also, you said we had a hard right government before obama? No we did not, we had NEOCON's which are just as bad as liberals/progressives, maybe a little less on certain issues.Reagan was as close as we have had to a conservative president and he turned things around. However, Paul would be a real conservative president but need a conservative libertarian/senate and house.Hopefully, Dem fatigue will give a President Paul(if it happens) a super majority as obama had for a couple of years and get some things done, The key is to make sure no more Democratic "living constitution" radicals end up on the Supreme Court, this country will not survive another "progressive" court. Really, we are still feeling the effects made by the cowards on the court in the 30's and 50/70's, although the warren court made a few good decisions.

[Bubblehead1980]

The media would portray Rand as a right wing lunatic with a touch of bigot.

They will, but he knows this and if can be the guy he was in that response in each of his speeches, debates etc, they will be just talking heads that they are.

Paul opposes the civil rights act or part of it? Then launch a blitz and explain why that law was wrong or a large part of it.The uninformed hear someone opposes that, it triggers emotion, but ensure it gets out what part and WHY.Explain why affirm action is WRONG in today's society.Most reasonable people will side with that when it is properly explained.That was Ron Paul's problem, he would start talking about the federal reserve etc.Well, I understood it, and a lot did, but sooo many people watching have no earthly idea how terrible the federal reserve is, what a sham it is.They don't know about the fight in the 1800's over the national bank, they don't understand the big picture.

[soopaman2]

I like dr. Ron Paul.

He is painted as a lunatic, but if you actually check out his facts he is sound.

His son is a lunatic. My dad couldn't make any headway, so I am gonna go far out on the fringes.

Rand has something to prove, making him dangerous, (and impressionable by interests) His father is a much more sound candidate.

[Tribesman]

The current string puller, well the main one, is GEORGE SOROS.
On my.:doh:
Not the global jewish financial conspiracy again????:rotfl2:
Have you been overdosing on Glenn Becks updated version of the Rothschild NWO conspiracy?

[Oberon]

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3302/4604727344_1a409e2f43.jpg

[Skybird]

Our system has a lot of problems that need to and will be addressed but the core of it is a beautiful thing.I have noticed you critical of western political systems, democracies(US is a constitutional republic by the way or used to be) what other system do you propose? The others certainly do not work.The core of our system is a beautiful thing, just involves humans so it gets messy but can be fixed.

No, it cannot, the problems you see as fixable are rooting in the very democratic principles themselves.

The state should be left to guaranteeing the right to own property - and this as a transitory solution only. In the end, I am against any state apparatus, always, since any such apparatus necessarily must turn - and will and does turn - into an inflationary growing bureaucratic monster doing injustice and turning citizens into its slaves. Always. In economics they have the so-called Peter-principle (translated from the german, after a man of that name) and the law of Parkinson, both explain why this is so: that bureaucracies always constantly grow, inevitably. You cannot reform them with lasting effect, it is impossible.

In greater detail I discussed my views just two or three months ago, Bubblehead, in great detail to some degree, in a debate with Oberon (which I then interrupted somewhat abruptly when I realised that I went into more detail than a forum can pragmatically handle ).

The basis of my thinking is that it is unreasonable to assume that in a democratic system (and the American republic IS a democratic system, since the republic obviously is not anything else - but on this hairsplitting I also already have posted clear definitions of "republic" , "democracy" and how both overlap in modern days) politicians would find it not reasonable not to violate the interests of state reason and finances, because avoiding that would damage their own interest of making maximum use of the resources available to them as long as they hold their privileged position as politicians of national format. The resources they use are not theirs, so they have no interest to keep them in good shape for the future.

What also ruins the modern state, is the hilarious amount of business lobbyism. It is impertinent to call it "democratic" anymore, even if one would hold a good opinion of democracy itself. It's the lobby network that runs states - bypassing voters most of the time.

For greater details, I refer you to those maybe 3 months old debates back then. I am not feeling like wanting to retype all that again. ;) As a summary, I agree with much of what the Austrian school of economics, and the so-called libertarians have to say, and I remind of the fact that "democracy" has had a very bad name until just recently in history. Already the ancient Greek warned of it. And on them I have posted a brief summary two times, too.

Names I would mention to have influenced my views in positive are Montaigne, Adam Smith, Hobbes, of course John Locke, Hume, Schumpeter, Burke, Jean Baptiste Say, John Stuart Mill, Gustave Le Bon for his insightful analysis of the psychology of the masses, Carl Menger and then of course the modern giants: Ludwig van Mises, Friedrich von Hayek, Ludwig Erhard, Murray Rothbard, Hans Herrmann Hoppe. I hold in high respect much of what the founding fathers thought and put down in writing, but I do not list them by name, since I have a hard time to remember which quote belonged to whom, so I throw all those great things to quote into one pot and refer to it as that the founding fathers said it.

Great antipathy of mine goes against Rousseau, Marx, Keynes (who often is misunderstood, but even when quoting him correctly I do not see his thinking as less erratic), and the french revolution in general, which I do not see as something that has given "birth" to freedom and justice, but has put the "make everybody equal to everybody else" above all and led to a wild mob celebrating a fantastic bloodbath. It's one of the most misunderstood events ever discussed in history, I think. What often is attributed to the French revolution, in fact bases on what could be called the English enlightenment, the English and Scottish moral philosophers, and in parts the values of the Christian tradition.

Regarding the founding fathers, this, as a closing word. I am fully aware of the design as intended for the US, once, long time ago. My problem with America is - and that is what often earns me the criticism of being "America-hating" that the theoretical, philosophical fundament of the US, and the way it has developed and unfolded into the state it has now turned into, a lightyears apart, making the historic fundament an empty corpse that the worms and maggots who invaded it and reside in it make dancing and moving to give the crowd the impression that it still is alive. It is an empty facade, the real power already is disconnected from the principles outlined by the founding fathers. People want to believe that it still is all healthy and well nevertheless, to avoid needing to realise the real situation they are in. The ideas got hijacked and assassinated in the darkness behind the political stage; imposters, lobbyists and money-makers have replaced their proponents and dress and act like them to stay immune and untouchable, and what is left of the substance behind the facade, all the time gets consumed more and more by them. And that is the America I am unforgiving about, like I also unforgivingly attack Germany, the EU, and any other state in the west, because this disease is not just a problem of the US, but it is an international pandemic.

And it brings us down. We could have known it, but we did not listen. We have been warned of these going since centuries and in fact since millenia , but we did not want to believe the warnings, but wanted to have our party in the short term.

Cleaning the kitchen afterwards never was on our list of to-do's.

Some golden rules:
- Bring to end politics as a business and career opportunity.
- The most important duty of a state - maybe even its only - is to fight capitalism's inherent tendency for building monopolies and cartels. Monopolies must be prevented at all cost. With monopolies, capitalism cannot unfold its creative potential and support for freedom, but turns into a power advocating slavery.
- Limit political powers according to what I outline. Have robust qualification criteria for people going into the few remaining offices, and time-limit their stay. No incompetent dilettantes in office. No selfish predators as well. I like the ancient Greek invention of the "Scherbengericht" (ostracism): once a year all citizens can have one name of an administrator or office-holder written on a ballot, and if there are names meeting a certain treshold in numbers, the person is thrown out of office and is banned from the country for ten years and can be killed by everybody who meets him in that time within that country.
-From time to time replace the personnel in the remaining bureaucracy. Axe back its structures in frequent intervals, like you cut back a tree every third spring or so. Hand over as much of its functions to communal, local self-administration. Act on that local level the same way: replace the personnel frequently, cut back its structures.
-Don't have states do for people what people can do themselves.
-Banks shall never become so big that they are "system-relevant". Companies shall never become so big that they can bypass communal self-regulation, or in fluence rule-making.
- Money must become a covered value-money again. Not FIAT money, not debt money, not papermoney - all that is just bits of paper, a politically wanted tool for inflation so that the supply for money politicians waste can never come to an end. Papermoney is the way by which states are so irresponsible with their spendings. Making debts should be morally banned and tabooised (?) both regarding community and state, and private household.
- Taxing is robbery, and today's nations are self-legitimizing robbers holding a monopoly on that crime. No politicians should be allowed to call out taxes. What a community needs to get done in its realm and is of group interest, members of that community can and should decide all by themselves in their place. They must be perfectly free to do so as long as they have own material interest and private property invested that is affected.
- Who has nothing to contribute to the local community, shall have no rights in deciding over its going, rules and plans. Its a give and take, no free ride. Netto payers can participate in decision-making. Netto receivers cannot.
- The state shall hold no property.
- Private property must be guaranteed. It is "holy" and non-negotiable.
- "Social justice" most of the time is an euphemism for "socialist quantitative equality" and calls for massive redistribution operations - steal from the one and distribute the loot to one own supporters to get there vote. Our "social" societies today are societies of greed, and social justice most of the time is about materialistic greed only. People have no right to demand that they get fed by others. They have the right to try what is needed for them to feed themselves. Where people say "The state should pay this for me, the state should give that service to me", they indeed say "other people should pay for me". That is anti-social, egocentric and disgusting.
- Bring to an end any political interference by business lobbyism. It cannot be that big business bypasses the electorate by bribing politicians and having good connections to their parties. It cannot be that big business makes the laws by which it then can effectively settle itself and erode the framework of rules. The state is not the partner of business, it is the objective referee guaranteeing that certain basic rules are not violated: not forming monopolies, for example.
- Bring to end end the state monopoly on money-making and money-regulation. Let money be again what it needs to be and what it must be: an ordinary good traded freely between market participants, negotiating its value freely between themselves.
- Understand that the state does nothing that could not also be done by people themselves, in their own responsibility, freely, in mutual negotiating the final terms. You realise that the need for a state is much smaller than usually seen.
Bomb all central banks, kill them all.
- No man has to lay any claim for somebody else for the mere argument that the other exists.
- Never let politicians have the say on what to do with money - NEVER. Don't let the mob have the final word either. This means then: no state, but self-administration on small communal levels. Very small local, regional levels.
Don't allow, never, politicians to avoid themselves the rules and their consequences they have set up for others. For serving time and work in public office: give compensations, but no additional privileges exceeding these compensations.

Talking about an ideal world. The problem with the "model" above is not what it says, but how to get there. That there will ever be a transition to it without an outside world cracking down on the palces where this happens, is extremely unlikely. The change thus must be global. I am realist. I know that the chance for this to happen globally, simultaneously, is extremely small. Thus my scepticism about our future, for because these changes are so difficult to realise, does not mean that I see another chance than this difficult way. We have boxed ourselves way too far into the corner, I think. While there might be an escape, I think we will prefer to stick with the old ways until they have brought us down completely. We are creatures of habit, and nothing gives us a feeling of greater warmth and comfort and imagined safety than repeating the same old familiar mistakes again and again.

[Mr Quatro]

This discussion is probably two to three years too early, but I think any candidate, even a democratic candidate like Vice President Biden for example, could beat Hillary Clinton :yep:.

Des this Rand Paul guy have a legitimate birth certificate to present before the firing squad election starts?

Speaking of birth certificates ... should President Obama openly display his Hawaiian birth certificate on a wall when he opens his presidential library?

[mookiemookie]

http://www.dazzlejunction.com/graphics-sports/cheerleading/go-team-go.gif

[Platapus]

In my opinion, the number one qualification to be President is the demonstrated ability to "do the deal" with congress.

The president, by design, can't get a whole lot accomplished without the support of congress.

The president asks congress to do things. The president never tells congress to do anything. A good president is one that can work with both sides.

Now the term "working with both sides" does not mean dictating to the other side. It means making the realistic political decisions/compromises that gives both sides something they want. Doing the deal. It means choosing your battles, being willing to prioritize what you are willing to give up and what you won't.

Being a good president means losing some battles in order to win other battles.

Politics has been said to be the "art of the possible".

Compromise is not a dirty word, nor is it a word synonymous with failure. In politics compromise is another word for success even though it can be a bit hard on the ego. :yep:

When ever a presidential candidate proclaims "If elected, I will do xyz", unless xyz in in that very narrow band of executive authority, what the candidate is really saying is "if elected I will ask congress to authorize xyz"

A huge and significant difference.

The president needs the cooperation of congress in order to get anything done.

Unfortunately, in campaigns, none of this is even discussed. Campaigns are limited to political rhetoric that won't survive the first day of office.

Although I would never vote for him, in the last election probably the most qualified person for president was Newt. There is a man who knows how to make the deals with congress. He had a demonstrated history of making deals within congress.

This is why I never considered Dr Paul a viable candidate. Some of his ideas are great; others not so great. But most important, Dr Paul has about as much political clout in congress as I do. He can't even get member of his own party to support him. What could he possibly accomplish as president? Look at his record in congress.

Dr Paul, in the almost 40 years he has been in office, has sponsored 620 legislative measures. Of those 620, only four have made it even to the house floor for debate. Of those four, only 1 was passed in to law... and that was for the transfer of public land to the Galveston Historical Foundation.

Obama's legislative record is not so hot either, but he was in the senate far less time.

The President of the United States is NOT an entry level job!

Voters need to look at the political record of the candidates for evidence of demonstrated ability to do the dirty political deals. That's the only way they can survive with any chance of success as POTUS.

This whole idea of it being desirable for a Washington outsider to become president is crazy. We need to elect a president who truly understands how Washington, as messed up as it is, really works. Hence my mantra -- he has to be able to make the deals.

As Bush and Obama have demonstrated, it is not a job for amateurs. :nope:

No president can stand up against congress. Our system is simply not designed to allow that to happen. And it is a good thing to.

A good president must be one who can do the deal with congress and one who congress can trust to do the deals. Cooperation, like conspiracy, is a two way partnership.

It sounds dirty and slimy and it should.. but that's the way politics works. :yep:

I almost think that the most qualified people to be president are the long term shakers-movers in congress.. they have the experience in making the deals. The problem is getting a good congresscritter to give up their lifetime position of power as a Senator/Representative for a short term job of POTUS.

Just an old guy's opinion. :woot:

[Tchocky]

All good points, Platapus. The relationship with congress has to be a two way street.

Holding 40+ votes to repeal the ACA is a rather clear signifier of how little appetite there is in the House for negotiation.

[Bubblehead1980]

Skybird, I read your post and agree with many aspects of it but then again, I don't. I will respond later this evening when have more time.

Platapus, the problem with negotiation, is if it violates major principles, it is a betrayal of your voters to "do the deal" and the president is supposed to ask congress to do things, certain presidents can't get what they want so they use executive order or use backdoor solutions.Example, cap and trade could not get passed, so obama has went about using the EPA to backdoor cap and trade in.Not the only to do this crap but its what comes to mind.

Honestly, I like what the house has done, they have been the last line of defense.I mean, we saw what happened first two years of obama's presidency with a majority in both houses, we have the monstrosity known as obamacare, the stimulus, Sonia Sotomayor appointed to supreme court etc etc. Honestly, glad American woke up in 2010 because we would have likely suffered even more damage without the house.The house has been the safeguard against obama on many things.They would work with him but you cant expect people to just give him his way, in the name of "compromise", especially if it violates their principles and conscience as well as that of the voters who sent them there.

Also, much of Obama's problems with congress is his own.A complaint even from the Dem side is the president rarely engages them.They expect to feel important and for him to schmooz.Barack Obama is not schmoozer personally.Sure, he can work a room to appeal to certain people out there, come across as sincere to some, read a teleprompter and cue cards fairly well and say what they want to here but it's a facade,Obama is not a guy you want to have a beer with and "shoot the sh...t" with . I am stalking strictly personality, nothing to do with his politics etc. Obama does not play the one on one game well with his peers is what I am saying and that is part of the game. So combined his far left views with a no so great personality when cameras are off, it is a wonder can't get this done.

I could see them working with him on a budget deal if he put real effort to cut spending etc but he has not made any real effort.Also, it's like relationship that has ran its course, two just have irreconcilable differences, just have to let things run their course as no way can agree on anything.The house has been doing that, stall his agenda since it's not good for the country, wait until he is gone.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Platapus, the problem with negotiation, is if it violates major principles, it is a betrayal of your voters to "do the deal" and the president is supposed to ask congress to do things, certain presidents can't get what they want so they use executive order or use backdoor solutions.It looks like (atleast from this side of the pond) that almost everything is "major principle" that can't be negotiated of.

[Ducimus]

It looks like (atleast from this side of the pond) that almost everything is "major principle" that can't be negotiated of.


We don't compromise anymore. We just dig our heels in and duke it out, while trying to make the other guy look bad.

[nikimcbee]

@Platatpus
That was a great post.
I think the big problem is where it becomes a career for them.:down: When it becomes a career, they no longer serve their constituents, but they are more worried about their job security. I think this is a big problem, where there is one party rule. (See Oregon or Utah for examples)
They get hooked on the power and the benefits, then there is no removing them.

I think there should a a one term limit and you're done and/or get rid of all the benefits,perks, goodies, salary, and give them a basic living stipend. Do it like jury duty maybe.


http://frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/sheila-jackson-lee.jpg

McBee! that is jus crazy! Who will drive me to lunch!?! I AM A QUEEN!!!!!
Where is Mooke? Mookie, don't jus stand there, get me my coffee! Neal, what are you laughing at!?! Get me my lunch!!!

I AM THE CONGRESS WOOOOOMAN! AND YOU WILL RESPECT ME!

[Platapus]

Platapus, the problem with negotiation, is if it violates major principles, it is a betrayal of your voters to "do the deal" ....


"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." Eddie Burke (1774)

Which raises an interesting question. Can a representative serve his or her people and not agree with their opinions?

That is not an easy question to answer.

In our representative government, we empower, through elections, people to make decisions on our behalf not necessarily based on our opinion. If we disagree with the way our elected representative represents us, the citizens can choose not to re-elect them.

It would be swell if what the citizens want and what the representative thinks is right are in agreement. But what if they ain't?

Our country is only a democracy to the point of electing our representatives. After that, the "will of the people" is less important until the next election.

That is the basis of a representative government.

This is why it is so important to really understand the candidate further than a letter after his or her name. :yep: