Thread: PLEASE Stop Rewarding and Re-electing Politicians that . . .

This is the MOST depressing post I've read in a while. Only the voting fraud posts depress me this much. Sigh, it's better to know than not.

I guess if I don't have any viewpoints on a candidate, my voting strategy will be to vote out all incumbents!

Originally Posted by danielsummars

In a voting nation, education is paramount.
We're going to get our education one way or another.
Voters can choose whether it is going to be:
(a) the smart, peaceful, responsible way,
(b) or the hard, painful way (again).

danielsummars

You can't just look at a vote.........you actually have to read the entire bill. It's not always the way it looks!

danielsummars
You can't just look at a vote.........you actually have to read the entire bill. It's not always the way it looks!

I can't?
Why not?
After all, it is the polticians that created this mess in which massive 20,000 page BILLs are loaded up with earmarks, pork-barrel, graft, corporate welfare, and waste.
So that excuse (can't just look at a vote) is (excuse my bluntness) nonsense.
Otherwise, the bought-and-paid-for politicians can cleverly pick-and-choose any number of convenient excuses as to why they voted FOR or AGAINST any BILL.
And they do.
Sorry, but I'm tired of that game and those excuses.

And that is why we need One-Purpose-Per-BILL.
Why is it I (or any simpleton off the street) can think of such an obvious and logical solution, but no one in Congress can?
That's because the politicians like things just the way they have perverted it. It is by design to decrease transparency. And where there is a lack of transparency, corruption grows and grows. And that's what we have.

So, pardon me, but I will look at their vote like I want to as long as they want to use any number of excuses for the way they vote.

Therefore, I don't care to look at the WHOLE stinkin' 20,000 page BILL.
In fact, neither do they.
Do you really think they read those BILLs?
I've heard many of them admit that they don't.

So, if politicians can pick-and-choose their reasons, then so can I.

The politicians screwed it all up the entire process with severely pork-laden, 20,000 page BILLs (full of earmarks).

The politicians messed this up, and too many voters that repeatedly reward and re-elect them for it, and reward them with 90% to 95% re-election rates (since 1996) is just making them more corrupt, arrogant, FOR-SALE, and inrresponsible.

No wonder Congress has a dismal 30% approval rating.
No wonder this nation is in serious trouble, with many pressing problems being allowed (even nurtured) to grow in number and severity.

Yet, too many voters turn around and defend them?
Reward them?
Re-elect them?
Over-and-over?
And say "You can't just look at a vote" ? ? ?

The government will NOT become more responsible until the voters do too.
And that's not likely to happen until the consequences of the voters apathy, complacency, and repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians becomes too painful. And we are well on our way.

So, I ask again, who can name at least 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountble.
So far we have 6 names.
Is that it?
And those names are questionable, based on their voting records (some (above) weren't even consistent on illegal immigration, for cryin' out loud).
Unless there are at least 268, then Congress as a whole is irresponsible and unaccountable.

But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Just look at illegal immigration and how long it has existed.
The federal government is failing at one of its most fundamental duties: to protect our borders. You'd think that for the $2 trillion in annual tax revenues and the total $22 trillionof federal debt, that this problem would have been addressed a long, long time ago.
How many decades do they need to fix this?
The reason they won't fix it is because most of them are in the pockets of their big-money-donor puppeteers.
Most (if not all) in Congress are FOR-SALE.
Just look at how the majority of them refuse to address campaign finance reform.
Just look at how the majority of them refuse to call an Article V Convention to allow the states to make Constitutional amendments, despite 567 requests by the state legislatures of ALL 50 states (far in excess of the two-thirds requirement; one of the best kept secrets in America).
And rewarding and re-electing them for it makes them just that more irresponsible and unaccountable.

The government will NOT become more responsible until the voters do too.

But don't worry.
There is a built-in self-correcting mechanism.
It's called pain and misery.
When will voters stop rewarding and re-electing irresponsible politicians?
When the consequences of it finally become too painful.
Of course, that may not happen soon enough.
And the longer it doesn't, the worse it will be later.

In a voting nation, an educated electorate is paramount.
And we're going to get our education.
Some painful lessons are already in the pipe-line.

danielsummars

By George, Daniel, I think you've got it.

I realize that sometimes politicians step up to the plate and vote the right way. The only time they do that, in my opinion, is when their wants and needs demand it. We are lucky if our wants and needs just happen to coincide with theirs once in a while.

People, we need to think. Think what you would have done had you been a congressperson for the last, say, 20 years? Would you have sat by and maybe 'voted' the right way - sometimes - on this very destructive thing called illegal immigration? Or any of the other destructive things that have happened and are happening?


Would you have written op-ed pieces, sent letters to all your constituents (we pay the postage), held town hall meetings, went on talk shows, went on radio shows, in general wouldn't you have tried to let the people know what was going on? Would you have written letters explaining this to anyone from whom you received a letter - constituent or not?

We should have had dozens of Paul Reveres from there galloping around the country, sounding the alarm.
The media could not have sat on it for years if we had had.

The administrations - all of them - could not have pretending it didn't exist.

Local law enforcement could not have refused to enforce the laws they could have enforced that would make the illegals less dangerous, less prosperous and less welcome. The laws are/were sometimes ignored at the behest of the 'big employer' of the area.

In short, if the rest of the country had known what Texas, AZ, and CA knew for the last 30 years, something would have been done before now.

They got this done because they pretended it didn't exist, and because we continued to have faith in 'our' politicians.

If we dont' exercise that vote and clean house this time, we very well may never have another chance - if we truly have one now.

We should have had dozens of Paul Reveres from there galloping around the country, sounding the alarm.
The media could not have sat on it for years if we had.

Very true.
It is very revealing.
At least for those not blinded by partisan loyalties (a major problem).

The Main Stream Media (MSM) has been complicit with most politicians that have ignored illegal immigration for many decades.

Why?

Because the MSM is also bought-and-paid-for too, like most (if not all) of our irresponsible incumbent politicians that have irresponsibly ignored existing laws for decades (especially illegal immigration laws).

It's interesting how the MSM appeared to be silent on the murder of Dani Countryman (murdered by an illegal alien). Perhaps the MSM feels like she deserved it since her behavior wasn't exactly above reproach? Or perhaps it is because the MSM simply wants to continue to downplay and distract away from the illegal immigration problem? NOTE: those are questions; not accusations.

The MSM is losing (if not completely lost) its credibility.
That is giving rise to the internet.
And while the internet is also a place where scams and lies abound, the truth is out there too (unlike the MSM).

The fact is, we don't only have an illegal alien problem.

We have an illegal employer problem.

And to this day, very little is being done to punish those greedy illegal employers.

Illegal immigration is really a symptom of a much more fundamental problem in this nation.
Illegal immigration is really another (of many) manifestation of unchecked greed.
The federal government is behind it, and too many voters tolerate it (even empower and reward politicians for it with 90% to 95% re-election rates since 1996).
To this day, the MSM and federal government still refuse to adequately address the problem.
They do a little here and there, to pacify and quiet the voters, but they refuse to truly address the problem adequately, which is why it won't go away.

Why?

Because most (if not all) politicians are bought-and-paid-for.
The U.S. Government is FOR-SALE.
Just look at where the massive amounts of money for their campaign warchests comes from.
83% of all money from federal political campaign contributions (of $200 or more) came from a tiny, tiny, tiny 0.15% of the 200 million eligible U.S. voters.
The remaining 99.85% of the 200 million eligible voters can NOT compete with that abuse of vast wealth to control and influence government.
Follow the money.
Government is not supposed to be FOR-SALE.
Sadly, it is.
And it is all legal too.
Even though corporations can not directly donate to politicians, they get around it by using PACs to funnel millions to politicians.
Thus, government is rotten to the core, and slumbering voters (40% to 50% who don't even vote) repeatedly reward and re-elect those very same incumbent politicians, giving them a cu$hy 90%-to-95% re-election rate since 1996.

And, it is not that difficult to confirm citizenship.
That excuse is so, so lame.
Sure, the citizenship/SSN verification process needs to be improved, but the excuses that illegal employers use are so #~(%!^@ lame.
I know a few employers that have told me that there are ways to verify SSNs.
What is abundantly clear is that too many (if not all) bought-and-paid-for politicians are in the pockets of greedy illegal employers.

And remember what Nancy Pelosi tried to sneak through a few months ago?
When they were considering a raise in the minimum wage, Nancy Pelosi tried to omit it for StarKist in Samoa, because she represents StarKist (one of the largest employers in Samoa).
That's the Speaker of the House?

By the way, I am neither Republcan or Democrat.
I am not affiliated with any political party.
Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, but too often, it is all too clear that too many voters have abdicated their responsibility to choose and vote for responsible candidates to THEIR party, and blindly pull the party-lever (i.e. vote straight-ticket) without even knowing exactly who they are voting for. This empowers the two-party duopoly to repeatedly take turns being irresponsible, gettin' theirs, giving themselves raises and cu$hy perks, ignoring illegal immigration, ignoring existing laws, ignoring Article V of the Constitution, and using and abusing the tax payers, while the nation's pressing problems continue to grow dangerously in number and severity.

Originally Posted by NCByrd

danielsummars

You can't just look at a vote.........you actually have to read the entire bill. It's not always the way it looks!

That's exactly right. When you speak face-to-face with them about a vote, there is usually a hidden loophole in the bill they won't vote for just like the crazy things in the Shamnesty bill. No these guys are good guys and yes they are Republicans. Wow do only Dems have good people. Good grief. I'm just writing about the ones I've observed lately or have known for a long period of time.

My mind hasn't changed. Of course there are good Dems but they are far and few between. I would like to keep about 20 combined Senators and Congresspersons the rest can go.

My mind hasn't changed. Of course there are good Dems but they are far and few between.

That's fine. Like setting concrete, some things take a while to cure. You are entitled to your opinion. Never mind that one of the persons on your list cheats on his wife (and not with just any other woman; a hooker). While I disagree, I recognize your right to your opinion.

However, the myriad of excuses for voting FOR or AGAINST a BILL is wide open to abuse and making excuses for it allows all politicians to be unaccountable for their voting records. Transparency is required. That could be accomplished with a One-Purpose-Per-BILL amendment. Unfortunately, they'll never pass it.

Congress won't allow any amendments like that, as evidenced by their refusal to call an Article V Convention, as required by the Constitution.

Your list is very short (only 6), and ALL Republicans. The list is clearly partisan, and serves as a prime example of the problem in this nation.

Making excuses for their voting records makes no sense. Even looking at the complete BILL does not explain away those voting records.

Yes, that last Shamnesty BILL should have been defeated.
I dont' think anyone here said it should have been passed.
However, what about all the other corruption? Just because they (now) vote as you want on ONE thing does not justify their voting records. Especially when they should have addressed illegal immigration a LONG, LONG, LONG time ago. What about that?

To call them good guys is debatable. That is your opinion. I have my opinion too, but at least I backed up my opinion with substantial facts.
Especially when one of your favorite 6 politicians cheats on his wife, and all of them refuse many no-brainer, common-sense reforms, and have for many years. Most (if not all) are FOR-SALE, and the evidence of it is staggering. Didn't you notice how most of them vote NO to any campaign finance reform?

Wallowing in the partisan warfare is exactly what politicians want. That is why the love to fuel it. And some voters are all too happy to wallow in it. That is how the politicians cleverly manipulate, divide, and distract the voters from more substantive issues, so that a majority of voters can never exist to remove the corrupt politicians from their cu$hy, coveted incumbencies. It is powerfully effective. And once they are in office, they have many unfair advantages (that they've given themselves) that makes it difficult to oust them.

That is why Congress enjoys a 90%-to-95% re-election rate.

That is why Congress ignores us, until they can't ignore us any longer.
Still, there is actually VERY little difference between Republican and Democrat politicians (based on their accomplishments).

I would like to keep about 20 combined Senators and Congresspersons the rest can go.

Great!
So perhaps we're not that far apart on this thing after all?
So, who (other than the 6 you already listed)?
But then, would you simply explain away their voting records too as you explained away the voting records (and cheating on their wife) of your favorite 6 listed above?

Of course there are good Dems but they are far and few between

That goes for Republicans equally. Especially after their recent display of corruption, fraud, etc. . . . something that was not completely lost on all voters . . . that is, the Republican party lost a lot of voters in the last election, which is why they lost the majority. Still, the Dems lead is very minor now. At any rate, I don't expect great things from either bunch. I expect they BOTH will continue to grow ever more bloated and corrupt, until it all becomes too painful (and too late).

That is why the nation is in serious trouble.
But blind partisan loyalties help keep irresponsible incumbent politicians in office (indefinitely); repeatedly rewarding and re-electing them. Often because they are the only person from THEIR party running for that office.
It's always the OTHER person's politicians that are bad.
It's always the OTHER party's fault.
So, people blindly pull the party-lever; empowering the two-party duopoly to maintain their stranglehold on the election process.
Not to mention the way the two main parties block access to third party and independent candidates.

So, if you don't mind me asking, did you pull the party lever?
You say some Dems are OK, but have you ever voted for one?
Or do you pull the party-lever (like most people)?

Yes, it would be great if we could oust enough of them to send them a clear message. Because nothing else will work. And repeatedly rewarding and re-electing them is what makes them more irresponsible, unaccountable, corrupt, and arrogant.

P.S. You can't get rid of all of them all at once. The 100 Senators have 6 year terms, so not all are up for election every two years. However, the 435 Representatives have two year terms. Neither the House or Senate have term-limits. The office of President has a 4 year term, and a 2 term limit. Interesting that Congress felt a term-limit was needed for office of President, but not for themselves? Term-limits may help, but Congress will never allow that. Only an Article V Convention has a chance of passing any badly-needed common-sense reforms, and that will only be if the 50 states join to force Congress to obey Article V of the U.S. Constitution. If Congress is going to ignore existing laws and the U.S. Constitution, what good are laws and the Constitution?

And just exactly who do you support for president Daniel??

Originally Posted by NCByrd

And just exactly who do you support for president Daniel??

Good question.

I'm not sure yet. Maybe none of them (i.e. for president).
That is, I can't vote for any candidate that continues to flagrantly violate Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution (by refusing to secure the borders and enforce existing laws to prosecute illegal employers), which despicably pits American citizens and illegal aliens against each other (for profits and votes).

But, if I were to list the candidates in the order of least unacceptable to most unacceptable (in my opinion), this would be it (as of 26-FEB-200:

• (1) Ralph Nader (least unacceptable)

• (2) Barack Obama

• (3) John McCain

• (4) Hillary Clinton (most unacceptable)

The choices for president stink:
Barack Obama: 20%
Hillary Clinton: 22%
John McCain: 27%
And Ralph Nader is too nebulous about illegal immigration. Some of his statements sound suspicious.
None of the presidential candidates have great records/positions on illegal immigration.

But, whoever becomes the next president, the next president will be sabotaged if the saddled with the same corrupt, Do-Nothing Congress.

But I will definitely be voting on 4-NOV-2008 (to vote out as many irresponsible incumbent politicians as possible). And all three senators have flagrantly violated Article V of the U.S. Constitution (in Walker v. Members of Congress).

In addition to illegal immigration (and the estimated $70 Billion to $338 Billion of annual burdens), the economy is in danger.

• The U.S. has $48 Trillion of nation-wide debt.

• $9.3 Trillion is National Debt

• $12.8 Trillion was borrowed and spent from Social Security, leaving it pay-as-you-go, with a 77 million baby boomer bubble approaching.

• $6 Trillion state and local government debt

• $20 Trillion personal debt nation-wide

• Regressive taxation

• falling incomes since 1967 (especially when considering more workers per household, more regressive taxation, more National Debt, and these abuses cheating most Americans for 30+ years)

WHERE will the money come from to pay the INTEREST on $48 Trillion, much less the money to reduce the PRINCIPAL debt of $48 Trillion?

The U.S. Dollar is falling like a rock.

An economic melt-down is not far-fetched, with so many years of fiscal and moral bankruptcy, and a pyramid-scheme monetary system that is drastically eroding the U.S. Dollar.

. . . more about the potential for an economic melt-down . . .

I'm not against the flat tax, either. The whole concept of having people pay taxes based on their income is straight out of Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto." With the system we have now, about half the people in the country aren't paying income taxes, and the bottom tier gets to use it as a Federal welfare program.

Buffet's secretary might be paying 40%, while Buffet pays 30%, but she pays a few thousand while he pays millions. Does he really use more government services than she does?