Historical context for Tuesday's elections Topic

So the President will still be able to veto "dirty work for special interests groups" politicians you fear.   Good.  Crazy *** laws won't be passed.

So, if some crazy *** law is passed by Congress and approved by the POTUS, it can be repealed.  Good.  We're not stuck with crazy *** laws.

You don't think there would be any way to prevent these rogue Congressmen from enslaving young women?   I think there is.

11/4/2014 11:53 AM
I gotta go with tec on this one. The ******, everyone-knows-how-it-works congress from whenever to 2010ish was still able to get a lot done despite the ****** career politicians it employed.

The ******, inexperienced, ****-compromise-we-stand-on-principle, 2010-on congress is a clusterfuck.
11/4/2014 12:18 PM
Ridiculously long line at my polling place. 
11/4/2014 1:17 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2014 1:17:00 PM (view original):
Ridiculously long line at my polling place. 
Voter ID laws hard at work.

You gotta mail that ****, much, much easier.
11/4/2014 2:05 PM
Another consideration for term limits on congressmen that hasn't been discussed yet is that final-term guys have a lot of incentive to start working on their post-Congressional careers, and that can definitely negatively impact their political agendas from the perspective of the constituency.  Over 50% of working former-Congressmen/women who lost or left their seats in the past 15 years are now working as Washington lobbyists for an average salary almost an order of magnitude above their Congressional salaries.  There's already plenty of incentive for our Congresspeople to start getting themselves into bed with special interests; if you put term limits in place, that grows much stronger.  One potential remedy, both within the current system or a term limit system, would be to substantially increase the Congressional pension plan, and certainly to allow it to vest at 100% with MUCH shorter service times (depending on age, you can keep benefitting up to 25 years of service under the current program).  Then make most of it forfeit if you work for special interest groups/lobbies/etc.  Increase salaries while you're at it.  Sure, it incenses a lot of the taxpayers.  But realistically, the cost of paying the Congress, Federal justices, and Executive officers is totally insignificant within the federal budget.  You can bump it up an order of magnitude and it makes no difference whatsoever.
11/4/2014 5:30 PM
Or "Sorry, if you were a Congressman, you cannot take a job as a lobbyist.   Ever."

Weed out the people seeking a "career" just like that.
11/4/2014 5:36 PM
I VOTED "D"STRAIGHT DOWN THE LINE EXCEPT FER--- I VOTED LEE ZELDIN INSTEAD OF TIM BISHOP(12 YEARS IS LONG ENOUGH) AND VOTED FOR A COUPLE OF REPUGS FOR JUDGESHIPS

ALSO VOTED YES ON ALL REFERENDI
11/4/2014 5:51 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2014 5:36:00 PM (view original):
Or "Sorry, if you were a Congressman, you cannot take a job as a lobbyist.   Ever."

Weed out the people seeking a "career" just like that.
That seems like an awfully difficult law to justify or enforce...

Almost certainly not constitutional.
11/4/2014 6:03 PM
Sex offenders can vote?
11/4/2014 6:03 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 11/4/2014 6:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2014 5:36:00 PM (view original):
Or "Sorry, if you were a Congressman, you cannot take a job as a lobbyist.   Ever."

Weed out the people seeking a "career" just like that.
That seems like an awfully difficult law to justify or enforce...

Almost certainly not constitutional.

Pretty sure we have all kinds of laws that disqualify people from serving.   Disqualifying them from after service jobs seems simple enough.

Put a long enough sentence for breaking said law and it's quite easy to enforce.

11/4/2014 6:06 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/4/2014 6:03:00 PM (view original):
Sex offenders can vote?
Sure.
11/4/2014 11:48 PM

Mandate issued.

11/5/2014 6:44 AM
UNTIL HILLARY. LMAO
11/5/2014 7:15 AM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/5/2014 6:44:00 AM (view original):

Mandate issued.

No, this is not a mandate.  The Dems/libs have stated so.

Now if it was the other way around, i.e. the Republicans had held control of both houses and the Democrats had taken control back, then we'd be hearing all about mandates this morning from the left.

#hypocrisy


11/5/2014 7:44 AM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
◂ Prev 12345 Next ▸
Historical context for Tuesday's elections Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.