User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:13:21 PM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:13:50 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So's Pence. 
Quite the clusterfuck, eh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:15:00 PM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:15:25 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Maxine Waters wants McCarthy as Speaker.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:16:40 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quite the clusterfuck, eh? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So's Pence.
Quite the clusterfuck, eh? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:17:10 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except Trump is on team McCarthy, right? I’m not even sure what side MAGA is on anymore. Trump still surrounds himself with stupid people advising him of stuff like this. Trump naively thinks he can deal with these people & they'll get out of his way for the next primary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:17:54 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:18:27 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have no idea, honestly. Endorsing the status quo and party line would be a first, and kinda goes against his political brand. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Is he? Or does he currently see it being advantageous to be seen as not derailing the process? I have no idea, honestly. Endorsing the status quo and party line would be a first, and kinda goes against his political brand. I don't think anyone knows the internal workings of DJT's mind (including himself). At the moment however he's looking at 2024 and may want to say he was working with the whole of the party. He may want some of those Super PAC dollars. There's lots of things that might be influencing him and what he says. To win 2024 he has to unite the party. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:19:08 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Trump/Pence 2024 IKR
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:20:16 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Boebert was absolutely right to call Trump out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:20:53 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That decision was made in October and voted on in November. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:22:31 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Read the rest of that tweet thread....it didn't go as expected for Omar lol Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maxine Waters wants McCarthy as Speaker.
Read the rest of that tweet thread....it didn't go as expected for Omar lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:22:36 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Trump still surrounds himself with stupid people advising him of stuff like this. Trump naively thinks he can deal with these people & they'll get out of his way for the next primary. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Except Trump is on team McCarthy, right? I’m not even sure what side MAGA is on anymore. Trump still surrounds himself with stupid people advising him of stuff like this. Trump naively thinks he can deal with these people & they'll get out of his way for the next primary. Didn't learn the first time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:22:36 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted: Missed it. What did she say? She said: Trump shouldn’t call them and say knock it off; he should call McCarthy and say withdraw. Everyone in the swamp is acting shocked she shared a ‘private’ convo with a President - and this after impeaching him for a phone call.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:24:03 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Missed it. What did she say? video; https://justthenews.com/government/congress/boebert-says-trump-should-tell-mccarthy-withdraw-speaker-race Basically "Trump, her favorite president, has it backwards & needs to tell McCarthy to step aside." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:26:54 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That decision was made in October and voted on in November. Yes, and it was voted on by all the people we voted out in the primary or who quit instead of facing the voters in the primary (Cheney, Kinzinger, etc). It's absolutely irrelevant - they knew after the election in November that McCarthy didn't have the votes, but they arrogantly ignored the will of the people & put him up anyway. And they're so arrogant he already moved his shit into the speaker's office. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:28:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: video; https://justthenews.com/government/congress/boebert-says-trump-should-tell-mccarthy-withdraw-speaker-race Basically "Trump, her favorite president, has it backwards & needs to tell McCarthy to step aside." Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Missed it. What did she say? video; https://justthenews.com/government/congress/boebert-says-trump-should-tell-mccarthy-withdraw-speaker-race Basically "Trump, her favorite president, has it backwards & needs to tell McCarthy to step aside." All that stuff should be behind closed doors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:29:11 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/43992/20230104_195602_jpg-2660864.JPG Just saw this on Twitter.. A black box? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:31:28 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All that stuff should be behind closed doors. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Missed it. What did she say? video; https://justthenews.com/government/congress/boebert-says-trump-should-tell-mccarthy-withdraw-speaker-race Basically "Trump, her favorite president, has it backwards & needs to tell McCarthy to step aside." All that stuff should be behind closed doors. I think those days are over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:33:00 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, and it was voted on by all the people we voted out in the primary or who quit instead of facing the voters in the primary (Cheney, Kinzinger, etc). It's absolutely irrelevant - they knew after the election in November that McCarthy didn't have the votes, but they arrogantly ignored the will of the people & put him up anyway. And they're so arrogant he already moved his shit into the speaker's office. Who does have the votes? It only takes McCarthy and a few cohorts to sink anyone... much as the freedom caucus is doing now. Scalise was voted as majority leader, probably why he's been quiet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:37:09 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well that's one idea... I wouldn't bet on it though. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: GED for the win. Here is what is happening right now: 20 moderate democrats are getting together with a list of demands for future speaker McCarthy. Tomorrow morning they will present him their list of demands in exchange for their votes, all behind the scenes of course. He takes their deal, becomes speaker, but is now in bed with the democrats. Simultaneously he wins points for being “bi-partisan” and being able to “work across the aisle”. The 20 Republican holdouts get tossed to the curb, lose all influence in the house, and are replaced by McCarthy endorsed RINOs in 2 years. Well that's one idea... I wouldn't bet on it though. And, it's the least likely path to occur. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:38:35 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That decision was made in October and voted on in November. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:
That decision was made in October and voted on in November. Its real simple. The GOP establishment moves to butt fuck many on the Freedom Caucus is blowing up in their face. Why should the FC play ball when you just tried to dick them down? I hope they hold out till a better candidate is put forth, or the government shuts down from lack of spending extension or budget or force the dems to vote with the Repub establishment revealing their true game. No mercy. Break the swamps back here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:39:45 PM EDT
[#23]
McCarthy is losing support with every new vote that's held, this despite pulling in endorsements from Trump, Pence, and many conservative media personalities. If he tries to partner with the Democrats, he'll lose even more Republican votes. And this has to assume that Cortez was lying or incorrect when she told The Intercept that she was speaking with Gaetz and Gosar to assure them that no Democrat deal with McCarthy was possible.
Some of you are awfully upset that McCarthy is losing and the Republican leadership is being humiliated 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:41:51 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uniparty Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Maxine Waters wants McCarthy as Speaker.
Uniparty I would tell that shrivled up prune to hurry up and bring the "What else". I'm tired of waiting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:42:23 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Its real simple. The GOP establishment moves to butt fuck many on the Freedom Caucus is blowing up in their face. Why should the FC play ball when you just tried to dick them down? I hope they hold out till a better candidate is put forth, or the government shuts down from lack of spending extension or budget or force the dems to vote with the Repub establishment revealing their true game. No mercy. Break the swamps back here. Budget's passed. They can keep this quality entertainment going until Sept 30th. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:42:39 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Its real simple. The GOP establishment moves to butt fuck many on the Freedom Caucus is blowing up in their face. Why should the FC play ball when you just tried to dick them down? I hope they hold out till a better candidate is put forth, or the government shuts down from lack of spending extension or budget or force the dems to vote with the Repub establishment revealing their true game. No mercy. Break the swamps back here. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted:
That decision was made in October and voted on in November. Its real simple. The GOP establishment moves to butt fuck many on the Freedom Caucus is blowing up in their face. Why should the FC play ball when you just tried to dick them down? I hope they hold out till a better candidate is put forth, or the government shuts down from lack of spending extension or budget or force the dems to vote with the Repub establishment revealing their true game. No mercy. Break the swamps back here. I don't know who the most anti-swamp GOPer in the House is, but he/she would get my vote. Fook all the swamp creatures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:46:58 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: GED for the win. Here is what is happening right now: 20 moderate democrats are getting together with a list of demands for future speaker McCarthy. Tomorrow morning they will present him their list of demands in exchange for their votes, all behind the scenes of course. He takes their deal, becomes speaker, but is now in bed with the democrats. Simultaneously he wins points for being “bi-partisan” and being able to “work across the aisle”. The 20 Republican holdouts get tossed to the curb, lose all influence in the house, and are replaced by McCarthy endorsed RINOs in 2 years. The problem with that scenario is once Dems start voting for McCarthy, a lot of Republicans won’t vote for him anymore, and either vote for the other Republican candidate, or vote present, which will reduce the number required, but also reduce the total votes that McCarthy gets. It’s going to take a lot more that 20 Dems voting for McCarthy for this to actually work. And this doesn’t mean that Jeffries wins either, because every Dem vote for McCarthy is one less for Jeffries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:48:06 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/43992/20230104_195602_jpg-2660864.JPG Just saw this on Twitter.. A black screen? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:49:30 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some of you are awfully upset that McCarthy is losing and the Republican leadership is being humiliated this ^ I’m loving this drama I read the term “destructionist” being used by twitter poster - could been from MTG who I considered part of the freedom caucus anyway I like that term let’s crash this thing |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:50:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Budget's passed. They can keep this quality entertainment going until Sept 30th. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Its real simple. The GOP establishment moves to butt fuck many on the Freedom Caucus is blowing up in their face. Why should the FC play ball when you just tried to dick them down? I hope they hold out till a better candidate is put forth, or the government shuts down from lack of spending extension or budget or force the dems to vote with the Repub establishment revealing their true game. No mercy. Break the swamps back here. Budget's passed. They can keep this quality entertainment going until Sept 30th. Might be part of why the FC is pissed and done yielding. If that was the bed McCarthy made for himself, well... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:52:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Balanced budget means you only send a balanced budget over to the senate as take it or leave it (while making clear that the house rules prohibit voting on whatever crap the senate tries to send back that isn't balanced). Then the senate can take what they get or shut down the entire government. Term limits are not unconservative or stupid - it breaks the career politicians holding seats for 40 years. They should be put into a constitutional amendment just like term limits on the presidency were. McCarthy could easily satisfy this by writing the constitutional amendment & allowing it to be voted on. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Balanced budget means you only send a balanced budget over to the senate as take it or leave it (while making clear that the house rules prohibit voting on whatever crap the senate tries to send back that isn't balanced). Then the senate can take what they get or shut down the entire government. Term limits are not unconservative or stupid - it breaks the career politicians holding seats for 40 years. They should be put into a constitutional amendment just like term limits on the presidency were. McCarthy could easily satisfy this by writing the constitutional amendment & allowing it to be voted on. I just don't see this as the time to make the demand, especially considering how far down the road the need to pass another budget will be. Term limits are absolutely retarded. They have gar more negative consequences than benefits in theory, and in practice the benefits tend not to be realized. A constitutional term limit amendment requires Democrats to get onboard and has basically no chance, no matter what McCarthy might promise. It is an absurd hill to die upon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:54:46 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just don't see this as the time to make the demand, especially considering how far down the road the need to pass another budget will be. Term limits are absolutely retarded. They have gar more negative consequences than benefits in theory, and in practice the benefits tend not to be realized. A constitutional term limit amendment requires Democrats to get onboard and has basically no chance, no matter what McCarthy might promise. It is an absurd hill to die upon. Scotus has twice ruled congress cannot change its eligibility requirements. As for the budget... when was it passed by the house? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:56:50 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don't forget cutting off money to those fucking scumbag leeches in Ukraine. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Don't forget cutting off money to those fucking scumbag leeches in Ukraine. I support aiding Ukraine and do not view them as scumbags. I have yet to hear more than a handful of people make any kind of remotely decent objection, much less an actual case for defending. Most just directly or indirectly repeat Russian propaganda or anti-war bullshit ultimately the result of older Soviet/Russian IO, or are spouting off isolationist or nationalist idiocy. The fiscal claims are absurd given how much we spend on other things. When we spend trillions on welfare the aid to Ukraine, the majority of which is material and not financial, seems trivial. If the Freedom Caucus were to make such demands I could certainly not respect them anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:57:56 PM EDT
[#34]
Not a cool comment.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2023 11:58:25 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you aren’t for closing and securing the border, balancing the budget, and term limits then you are a RINO. These are the three most popular issues and have been for 30+ years. People get elected on them, go to DC, and get corrupted. Popular does not mean good or intelligent, but then I'm no populist or Democrat. Term limits are easily objectionable from a conservative perspective. The notion that one is a RINO for not supporting them is patently absurd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:00:42 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: GED for the win. Here is what is happening right now: 20 moderate democrats are getting together with a list of demands for future speaker McCarthy. Tomorrow morning they will present him their list of demands in exchange for their votes, all behind the scenes of course. He takes their deal, becomes speaker, but is now in bed with the democrats. Simultaneously he wins points for being “bi-partisan” and being able to “work across the aisle”. The 20 Republican holdouts get tossed to the curb, lose all influence in the house, and are replaced by McCarthy endorsed RINOs in 2 years. Talk about a "Nuclear Option"  Bigger_Hammer 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:01:45 AM EDT
[#37]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:02:05 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hmm. The current system of politicians for life doesn't seem to be working to our benefit. I would like to hear your thoughts on specifically how term limits would be less a benefit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Term limits are stupid because it just means that lobbyists, staffers, and the administrative state wind up with even more power than they do already. I truly wonder how so many can be ignorant of the fact that legislative term limits have been tried many times in the U.S. to no discernible benefit at best. Expecting it to work this time around, with Congress, is just stupid where the position is not borne of ignorance. Term limits cause more harm than good in both theory and practice, and eesmith is just scratching the surface. Mandating a part-time legislature is something that would be of much more value, as would be reforms to how legislative chambers are apportioned. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:02:07 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just don't see this as the time to make the demand, especially considering how far down the road the need to pass another budget will be. Term limits are absolutely retarded. They have gar more negative consequences than benefits in theory, and in practice the benefits tend not to be realized. A constitutional term limit amendment requires Democrats to get onboard and has basically no chance, no matter what McCarthy might promise. It is an absurd hill to die upon. More negative consequences than having people like Schumer, Pelosi, Turtle, Graham, McCain, Bernie, Fauxahontis, Durbin, Hoyer, Brandon, Ted Kennedy, etc, stick around for over 40 years? Congress should be a part time job & they should only get 2 terms in the House & 1 term in the Senate - then they can go back to their regular jobs or run for president/VP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:05:19 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:06:31 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's because it's a state issue as to whom they choose to send to DC. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Presidential Term Limits came by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution - passed by both houses & the ratified by the majority of states. To date, nothing similar has happened for US Representatives or Senators. Bigger_Hammer That's because it's a state issue as to whom they choose to send to DC. And yet State attempts to impose term limits were correctly ruled unconstitutional and thrown out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:07:23 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By @willi3d : A black screen? Fix't |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:09:56 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Bullshit there is nothing the constitution that prohibits term limits. States lack the ability to but the USSC has not said congress cannot impose limits on itself outside of an amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:10:08 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem with that scenario is once Dems start voting for McCarthy, a lot of Republicans won’t vote for him anymore, and either vote for the other Republican candidate, or vote present, which will reduce the number required, but also reduce the total votes that McCarthy gets. It’s going to take a lot more that 20 Dems voting for McCarthy for this to actually work. And this doesn’t mean that Jeffries wins either, because every Dem vote for McCarthy is one less for Jeffries. Valid point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:11:38 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem with that scenario is once Dems start voting for McCarthy, a lot of Republicans won’t vote for him anymore, and either vote for the other Republican candidate, or vote present, which will reduce the number required, but also reduce the total votes that McCarthy gets. It’s going to take a lot more that 20 Dems voting for McCarthy for this to actually work. And this doesn’t mean that Jeffries wins either, because every Dem vote for McCarthy is one less for Jeffries. This. I don't see him pulling it off by swinging dem votes. He may try though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:12:08 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: More negative consequences than having people like Schumer, Pelosi, Turtle, Graham, McCain, Bernie, Fauxahontis, Durbin, Hoyer, Brandon, Ted Kennedy, etc, stick around for over 40 years? Congress should be a part time job & they should only get 2 terms in the House & 1 term in the Senate - then they can go back to their regular jobs or run for president/VP. Yes. More native consequences than that. And it's not like they won't be replaced with people as bad or worse. The voters are to blame more than anyone else and being a general elector has no term limit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:13:00 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Bullshit there is nothing the constitution that prohibits term limits. States lack the ability to but the USSC has not said congress cannot impose limits on itself outside of an amendment. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Bullshit there is nothing the constitution that prohibits term limits. States lack the ability to but the USSC has not said congress cannot impose limits on itself outside of an amendment. Okay, cite the part of the Constitution that allows their imposition for members of Congress. I won't hold my breath waiting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:14:55 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I truly wonder how so many can be ignorant of the fact that legislative term limits have been tried many times in the U.S. to no discernible benefit at best. Expecting it to work this time around, with Congress, is just stupid where the position is not borne of ignorance. Term limits cause more harm than good in both theory and practice, and eesmith is just scratching the surface. Mandating a part-time legislature is something that would be of much more value, as would be reforms to how legislative chambers are apportioned. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Term limits are stupid because it just means that lobbyists, staffers, and the administrative state wind up with even more power than they do already. I truly wonder how so many can be ignorant of the fact that legislative term limits have been tried many times in the U.S. to no discernible benefit at best. Expecting it to work this time around, with Congress, is just stupid where the position is not borne of ignorance. Term limits cause more harm than good in both theory and practice, and eesmith is just scratching the surface. Mandating a part-time legislature is something that would be of much more value, as would be reforms to how legislative chambers are apportioned. You keep saying that they cause more harm than good without qualifying your statement. HOW do they hurt? Politicians for life were never intended and its bullshit to act like its a good thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:15:36 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Okay, cite the part of the Constitution that allows their imposition for members of Congress. I won't hold my breath waiting. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Bullshit there is nothing the constitution that prohibits term limits. States lack the ability to but the USSC has not said congress cannot impose limits on itself outside of an amendment. Okay, cite the part of the Constitution that allows their imposition for members of Congress. I won't hold my breath waiting. Site the part that forbids it. I won't hold my breath either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:17:38 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I just don't see this as the time to make the demand, especially considering how far down the road the need to pass another budget will be. Term limits are absolutely retarded. They have gar more negative consequences than benefits in theory, and in practice the benefits tend not to be realized. A constitutional term limit amendment requires Democrats to get onboard and has basically no chance, no matter what McCarthy might promise. It is an absurd hill to die upon. Don’t forget the democrats still have the senate and White House. Republicans aren’t passing anything - their job is to block the democrat agenda and create gridlock. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
Attached File