What the hell is wrong with us?!

[The Duke]

Our political/electoral "system" (ha) is so perverted by money and power and negative incentives that it's not attracting better people.

Until and unless we fix the system, together, there's no reason for it to change or improve.

OK, just fer shits n giggles, let's hear your plan on doing just that, TDS Mac1958. You are so off the rails about Trump, I do find

it difficult to believe you can be rational about anything else at all, but hope springs eternal, and let's see how this plays out!

How do "we" fix this system together?

 

[Mac1958]

OK, just fer shits n giggles, let's hear your plan on doing just that, TDS Mac1958. You are so off the rails about Trump, I do find

it difficult to believe you can be rational about anything else at all, but hope springs eternal, and let's see how this plays out!

How do "we" fix this system together?

As I've pointed out, many times:

1. Short, strict term limits
2. Publicly-funded elections
3. Bipartisan redistricting commissions
4. Nonpartisan primaries
5. Ranked choice voting

Such a system would change the incentives, motivations and behaviors of politicians virtually overnight.

Since you're a hardcore partisan ideologue who lacks the capacity for, or interest in, collaborative ideas, I don't expect your agreement or approval.

 

[The Duke]

As I've pointed out, many times:

1. Short, strict term limits
2. Publicly-funded elections
3. Bipartisan redistricting commissions
4. Nonpartisan primaries
5. Ranked choice voting

Such a system would change the incentives, motivations and behaviors of politicians virtually overnight.

Since you're a hardcore partisan ideologue who lacks the capacity for, or interest in, collaborative ideas, I don't expect your agreement or approval.

You have blatantly misjudged me, TDS Mac1958 , I notice you mentioned exactly Jack Shit about lobbying, why is that?

You claiming I "lack the capacity" isn't exactly uh..accurate or diplomatic.

Oh, i wholly possess the capacity, but I already know how you are.

Why have you not mentioned lobbying at all? Are you that ignorant, or just that much of an actual government shill, bitch?

I motion it's the latter.

Nothing about revoking Citizens' United? Well Mac, clearly you're full of shit.

frigidweirdo knows what I'm talking about. I'm all about what's good for American people.

That may just be Trump, Mac1958

You're too myopic to consider that, but I'm a "big picture" type.

 

[SweetSue92]

OK, just fer shits n giggles, let's hear your plan on doing just that, TDS Mac1958. You are so off the rails about Trump, I do find

it difficult to believe you can be rational about anything else at all, but hope springs eternal, and let's see how this plays out!

How do "we" fix this system together?

Imagine spending 8 years calling anyone who voted for Trump every single name under the sun and more, railing on and on about how we lack heart, soul and mind and are beyond hope and help--and then saying "we need to fix the system together"

It's busted, Mac. No one believes you.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm a "big picture" type.

 

[The Duke]

Your selective quoting says all I need to know, tard.

You are predisposed to "derp".

What about this?

What the hell is wrong with us?!

Our political/electoral "system" (ha) is so perverted by money and power and negative incentives that it's not attracting better people. Until and unless we fix the system, together, there's no reason for it to change or improve. OK, just fer shits n giggles, let's hear your plan on doing just...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Mac1958]

Imagine spending 8 years calling anyone who voted for Trump every single name under the sun and more, railing on and on about how we lack heart, soul and mind and are beyond hope and help--and then saying "we need to fix the system together"

It's busted, Mac. No one believes you.

I've also said that the nutters on the ends of the spectrum most likely won't be a part of any lasting solutions.

So, good news. You're off the hook, Karen.

 

[The Duke]

I've also said that the nutters on the ends of the spectrum most likely won't be a part of any lasting solutions.

So, good news. You're off the hook, Karen.

Yeah, whatever, dumbass. You just dismissed her for no reason because you're really a leftarded idiot.

Do try and give me a different explanation.

 

[westwall]

He said he was going to smash my head. He’s full of shit.

You ain't got a head to smash, dummy

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

As I've pointed out, many times:

1. Short, strict term limits
2. Publicly-funded elections
3. Bipartisan redistricting commissions
4. Nonpartisan primaries
5. Ranked choice voting

Such a system would change the incentives, motivations and behaviors of politicians virtually overnight.

Since you're a hardcore partisan ideologue who lacks the capacity for, or interest in, collaborative ideas, I don't expect your agreement or approval.

I like all but don't know enough about number 5 to have an opinion

 

[Mac1958]

I like all but don't know enough about number 5 to have an opinion

Well, that's a great start.

 

[Dadoalex]

I don't use youtube as an information source.
Not surprising you do.

 

[Red Front]

View attachment 808956

Look at the above picture and tell me when we are going to wake the hell up.

That's Feinstein and she looks like a damn newly discovered Egyptian Mummy. Worse yet her cognitive ability is perhaps marginally better than that of a mummy.

Then we have Biden & McConnell with their senior citizen "moments"

We are allowing people with brains operating well below normal status to not only represent us but RULE OVER US.


I have said time after time we DESPERATELY NEED
Term limits
And age RESTRICTIONS


It is well past time to put an end to the "EXCLUSIVE CLUB"

There are 85-year-olds running marathons and people in their 90s who are sharper than people half their age. I wouldn't establish a blanket prohibition based on advanced age, it should be based on health and cognitive ability. In the not-too-distant future, aging might be stopped or reversed, then what? Do we have to lift the age restriction? What happens when life expectancy rises to 150+? When a 90-year old is the equivalent of a 40-year-old biologically? We're going to get there this century, perhaps sooner than later with technologies like CRISPR.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

There are 85-year-olds running marathons and people in their 90s who are sharper than people half their age. I wouldn't establish a blanket prohibition based on advanced age, it should be based on health and cognitive ability. In the not-too-distant future, aging might be stopped or reversed, then what? Do we have to lift the age restriction? What happens when life expectancy rises to 150+? When a 90-year old is the equivalent of a 40-year-old biologically? We're going to get there this century, perhaps sooner than later with technologies like CRISPR.

Needs to be age restricted. A test is useless because at that age episodes can occur at any time that alter a person's abilities to function. Unless you want to administer tests before every major vote then it's pointless.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I've beat down motherfuckers you're terrified of. If you wanna mess with me, you're going to have a bad time of it.

I know violence and how to hurt a human being. It comes like second nature to me.

You’re not fooling anyone, pussy. You’re just a harmless idiot running his mouth from the safety of his computer. Only complete pussies play the internet tough guy routine because they know they’re not actually going to do anything.

You’re this kid.

 

[BothWings]

You forgot Grassley...and Trump.

Hey, just us stuck in our two party system that rewards politicians who just don't know when to hang up the towel and pass the torch.

Trump looks fairly healthy for someone pushing 80. Most people look more like Feinstein by the time they're up there.

 

[XponentialChaos]

You ain't got a head to smash, dummy

That’s not what he said. And he already admitted he’s not going to do what he said. Maybe you two should try to get on the same page.

 

[Red Front]

Needs to be age restricted. A test is useless because at that age episodes can occur at any time that alter a person's abilities to function. Unless you want to administer tests before every major vote then it's pointless.

They can be tested every 6 months and at any time if they show signs of cognitive decline or senility. Older men and women offer experience and shouldn't be barred from serving the nation in elected office. I say this as a 50-year-old, so it's not like I'm arguing for this as someone in his 70s or 80s.

 

[BothWings]

What should be the margin then?
Because there are so many thirty-somethings who are SO brainwashed and arrogant because they essentially grew up on the internet, indoctrinated with Common Core, dumbed down with video games and woke-woke. It's getting to that point, where the generation which is pushing 40 just barely escapes that awful pivotal time when standards and scruples got flushed, and machines and corporations took over.

That kind of leaves an age margin of potential leadership between 40 and 70, and I'd say tht margin is narrowing because each new generation is being severely brainwashed now and history is being interpreted with evil twists that just ain't so, all to deceptively point out "friend and foe". Very dangerous to have people who have been indoctrinated with that leading us from high positions of office.

 

[Red Front]

As I've pointed out, many times:

1. Short, strict term limits
2. Publicly-funded elections
3. Bipartisan redistricting commissions
4. Nonpartisan primaries
5. Ranked choice voting

Such a system would change the incentives, motivations and behaviors of politicians virtually overnight.

Since you're a hardcore partisan ideologue who lacks the capacity for, or interest in, collaborative ideas, I don't expect your agreement or approval.

Term limits, limit the options people have to elect good leadership. If people were educated on what constitutes good leadership and on the type of policies that serve their interests, they could continually vote for good people to represent them. Having the freedom to elect the same person continually for 20 or 40 years, who has proven to be a good leader, with an impeccable record of serving the public good, in my opinion, is better than barring them from serving based on "term limits".

I do agree with publicly funded elections, in order to avoid the corruption that exists today with the "super-PACs", comprised of wealthy elites, buying our politicians.