Your.. Political 3 Wishes

[pans trogladyta]

While we're talking about wishes, how about a none of the above box on the ballots? Then I can vote against all those creeps simultaneously.

I guess you missed the part where we are a REPRESENTATIVE Republic. We elect people to Represent us. FAILING to fill a position by vote means the State gets to fill it by non vote.

No, you misss the point, if they don't get elected we get to try again until someone does get elected. I think it's a great way to stir the pot.

 

[kurtsprincess]

Some true colors shining through on this thread.

I thought the premise of the thread was rather simple: State what 3 things you'd like to see happen.
Instead others, rather than voicing their own desires, choose to attack the wishes of others.

I'm more nationalistic in my wishes...

1) Kick out all illegals and shut down the borders.
2) Give tax incentives, instead of penalties, to companies to stay here in America.
3) Term Limits for all elected positions and freeze all raises for them

Ditto!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

While we're talking about wishes, how about a none of the above box on the ballots? Then I can vote against all those creeps simultaneously.

I guess you missed the part where we are a REPRESENTATIVE Republic. We elect people to Represent us. FAILING to fill a position by vote means the State gets to fill it by non vote.

No, you misss the point, if they don't get elected we get to try again until someone does get elected. I think it's a great way to stir the pot.

Simply not true. MOST if not all States have a winner declared by whom ever gets the most votes. So even if 70 percent voted none of the above, whom ever got the most of the other 30 percent would win. Further most States have a process for installing interim holders of Office until scheduled elections occur.

The idea that you are doing anything except throwing away your vote is ignorant. Just don't vote. It is just as effective.

 

[pans trogladyta]

I guess you missed the part where we are a REPRESENTATIVE Republic. We elect people to Represent us. FAILING to fill a position by vote means the State gets to fill it by non vote.

No, you misss the point, if they don't get elected we get to try again until someone does get elected. I think it's a great way to stir the pot.

Simply not true. MOST if not all States have a winner declared by whom ever gets the most votes. So even if 70 percent voted none of the above, whom ever got the most of the other 30 percent would win. Further most States have a process for installing interim holders of Office until scheduled elections occur.

The idea that you are doing anything except throwing away your vote is ignorant. Just don't vote. It is just as effective.

Nope. if nobody is on the ballot, and he wins either you have another election, with a new slate of opponents to nobody or you install....nobody. hence we get rid of anyone who can't beat nobody. You're not very imaginative, are you new at this?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, you misss the point, if they don't get elected we get to try again until someone does get elected. I think it's a great way to stir the pot.

Simply not true. MOST if not all States have a winner declared by whom ever gets the most votes. So even if 70 percent voted none of the above, whom ever got the most of the other 30 percent would win. Further most States have a process for installing interim holders of Office until scheduled elections occur.

The idea that you are doing anything except throwing away your vote is ignorant. Just don't vote. It is just as effective.

Nope. if nobody is on the ballot, and he wins either you have another election, with a new slate of opponents to nobody or you install....nobody. hence we get rid of anyone who can't beat nobody. You're not very imaginative, are you new at this?

You can be as imaginative as you want, reality trumps you every time. The election process simply does not work the way you want it to. And with good reason. Elections cost money and time to run. The State puts a pretty penny into elections. And since our VERY form of Government DEPENDS on electing Representatives, the State has a vested interest in ensuring a victor is declared after any election.

 

[pans trogladyta]

Simply not true. MOST if not all States have a winner declared by whom ever gets the most votes. So even if 70 percent voted none of the above, whom ever got the most of the other 30 percent would win. Further most States have a process for installing interim holders of Office until scheduled elections occur.

The idea that you are doing anything except throwing away your vote is ignorant. Just don't vote. It is just as effective.

Nope. if nobody is on the ballot, and he wins either you have another election, with a new slate of opponents to nobody or you install....nobody. hence we get rid of anyone who can't beat nobody. You're not very imaginative, are you new at this?

You can be as imaginative as you want, reality trumps you every time. The election process simply does not work the way you want it to. And with good reason. Elections cost money and time to run. The State puts a pretty penny into elections. And since our VERY form of Government DEPENDS on electing Representatives, the State has a vested interest in ensuring a victor is declared after any election.

Then, by your logic, they must declare the winner to be whomever gets the most votes. If nobody is on the ballot and, he gets the most votes, he wins. So you either choose a different slate and try again or install nobody.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nope. if nobody is on the ballot, and he wins either you have another election, with a new slate of opponents to nobody or you install....nobody. hence we get rid of anyone who can't beat nobody. You're not very imaginative, are you new at this?

You can be as imaginative as you want, reality trumps you every time. The election process simply does not work the way you want it to. And with good reason. Elections cost money and time to run. The State puts a pretty penny into elections. And since our VERY form of Government DEPENDS on electing Representatives, the State has a vested interest in ensuring a victor is declared after any election.

Then, by your logic, they must declare the winner to be whomever gets the most votes. If nobody is on the ballot and, he gets the most votes, he wins. So you either choose a different slate and try again or install nobody.

The State does not print blank ballots.

 

[Polk]

1) The government will finally get the message that they work for us and not for their re-election.

You realize that statement makes no sense, right? Officials are reelected because voters feel the official in question "work for us".

 

[pans trogladyta]

You can be as imaginative as you want, reality trumps you every time. The election process simply does not work the way you want it to. And with good reason. Elections cost money and time to run. The State puts a pretty penny into elections. And since our VERY form of Government DEPENDS on electing Representatives, the State has a vested interest in ensuring a victor is declared after any election.

Then, by your logic, they must declare the winner to be whomever gets the most votes. If nobody is on the ballot and, he gets the most votes, he wins. So you either choose a different slate and try again or install nobody.

The State does not print blank ballots.

True, but irrelevent.

 

[Polk]

1) Limit the right to vote to property owners or those with a demonstrated net worth of $10,000+.
2) Dismantle all cabinet positions that are not directly authorized by the Constitution
3) Tort reform and loser pays legal system.

So, disband the Cabinet (as none of them are authorized by the Constitution).

 

[Polk]

1) half congressional pay to remove the incentive for career politicians

2) ban 'gifts' and campaign financing from businesses and send violators to prison

3) require that all bills include a breakdown of every single entity that's to receive funds from the bill along with the total amount allotted, to be included as an appendix and made available to all major news outlets

The only thing reducing Congressional pay will do is make it even more of a playground for the super-wealthy.

 

[pans trogladyta]

1) half congressional pay to remove the incentive for career politicians

2) ban 'gifts' and campaign financing from businesses and send violators to prison

3) require that all bills include a breakdown of every single entity that's to receive funds from the bill along with the total amount allotted, to be included as an appendix and made available to all major news outlets

The only thing reducing Congressional pay will do is make it even more of a playground for the super-wealthy.

You'll have to get big money out of politics before you can change anything.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1) Limit the right to vote to property owners or those with a demonstrated net worth of $10,000+.
2) Dismantle all cabinet positions that are not directly authorized by the Constitution
3) Tort reform and loser pays legal system.

So, disband the Cabinet (as none of them are authorized by the Constitution).

Not true. The President is free to seek advisers of his own. Cabinet posts are those OFFICIAL Advisers for specific Government entities. And as such are vetted by Congress.

 

[JBeukema]

1) The government will finally get the message that they work for us and not for their re-election.

You realize that statement makes no sense, right? Officials are reelected because voters feel the official in question "work for us".

I thought it was just because they were fucking retarded?

 

[JBeukema]

1) half congressional pay to remove the incentive for career politicians

2) ban 'gifts' and campaign financing from businesses and send violators to prison

3) require that all bills include a breakdown of every single entity that's to receive funds from the bill along with the total amount allotted, to be included as an appendix and made available to all major news outlets

The only thing reducing Congressional pay will do is make it even more of a playground for the super-wealthy.

See #2. If it can be shown that a third party provided money on behalf of special interests, then they've not only violated the l;aw, but they've committed conspiracy to do so. Such matters would be addressed in the details of that law.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

1. Outlaw "signing statements"
2. Mandatory term limits
3. Balanced budget Amendment and no more raising the debt ceiing.

 

[editec]

No revolving door careers from government agencies to the industries those agencies regulate.

This BP/Gulf disaster is a fairly good example of why this practice is such a deadly thing for a democratic republic's long term health.

 

[The Rabbi]

No revolving door careers from government agencies to the industries those agencies regulate.

This BP/Gulf disaster is a fairly good example of why this practice is such a deadly thing for a democratic republic's long term health.

Why? Because we want people with no experience in their respective industries to be writing regs for them?

 

[sweetie]

RETARDED GY SGT BABBLES: "The idea that you are doing anything except throwing away your vote is ignorant. Just don't vote. It is just as effective."



..dumbass, there is no way for MANY people to express their opinions through 'voting'..granted, you stooooooooopid republicrat fucks can express yourselves at 'the polls'..(i sense sarge will be suckling for stinking willard milton romney soon)..

...you could make 'none of the above' 'NON-BINDING' (so too the much better 'negative vote' concept)..the important thing is that you stoooooooooopid motherfucking republicrats, and everyone else, is witness to the true 'support' for your stinking motherfucking republicrat ideas/actions...

...this way, the thin veil of legitimacy ('consent of the governed') for your MANY stinking motherfucking republicrat ideas/actions is destroyed..think toto pulling the curtain on the phony blowhard wizard of oz.. (hint for stooooopid fucks: this would be a VERY good thing!!)

...non-republicrats, have a nice day!!..

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RETARDED GY SGT BABBLES: "The idea that you are doing anything except throwing away your vote is ignorant. Just don't vote. It is just as effective."



..dumbass, there is no way for MANY people to express their opinions through 'voting'..granted, you stooooooooopid republicrat fucks can express yourselves at 'the polls'..(i sense sarge will be suckling for stinking willard milton romney soon)..

...you could make 'none of the above' 'NON-BINDING' (so too the much better 'negative vote' concept)..the important thing is that you stoooooooooopid motherfucking republicrats, and everyone else, is witness to the true 'support' for your stinking motherfucking republicrat ideas/actions...

...this way, the thin veil of legitimacy ('consent of the governed') for your MANY stinking motherfucking republicrat ideas/actions is destroyed.. (hint for stooooopid fucks: this would be a VERY good thing!!)

...non-republicrats, have a nice day!!..

Retard alert. RETARD ALERT.