Voting needs to be limited to only those that can legally possess guns

 

The best argument against democracy is a conversation with an average voter.

Nevermind the US is not a full democracy, and our vote for president is actually a vote for a representivie that says theybwill vote for that candidate in the vote the electoral college takes. Nevermind that not all states require them to vote for who they said they will.

 

True, but the number of faithless electors throughout history is so miniscule as to essentially invalidate the purpose of having an electoral college in the first place.

I'd love to see voting rights here restricted to those who can demonstrate some basic concept of the structure and function of the government which they are electing, though I fear such a measure would never come to pass. At least, not given the present political climate in the US.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...5DovamsFQtAB9w

Here is the link if you want to download and read the entire pdf sent to Comey.

 

Yes, thankfully we don't have a democracy and never have. A constitutional representative republic is a much more enlightened design. Although we slipped towards the direction of mob rule with the 17th amendment causing senators to be direct elected by popular vote rather than being appointed by state legislatures. The senators were designed to be appointed by the states and the representatives were to be elected by the people, maintaining a separation of purpose and interest between the two.

 

So I guess you'd drop the requirement for citizenship?

Do you honestly think Comey would answer that letter by the Friday prior to a national election?

I doubt the founders thought through (or even thought of, at the time) the subject of redistricting (first known instance was 1788).

Remember, in the beginning it was the individual states who determined who had the right to vote. If you were a white male and a property owner you were golden. Pretty much narrowed it down to the "educated" "monied" class or as some would now call them, liberals.

 

it wouldnt be such a problem if government was setup to simply just govern, not coddle.

 

https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/videos/772017519602812/

 

some wed morning reading: BREAKING: Day After Hillary Blasts the FBI, They Hit Her with NOVEMBER SURPRISE...


Clintons love money for favors -- they did back then, and still today.

 

Attachment 177928

 

Agreed. Reinstate the 17th and add term limits for Congress and SCOTUS. And fer Gawd sakes, require ID to vote!

 

Breaking News:

 

We already have term limits, it's called the ballot box.

The public stays unengaged and uninformed, we have the government we deserve.

 

we have term limits: it's 6 years for Senate, and 2 years for House.

voters can reelect at will, why would you want to take this away from the voter?

VA has (8) Republican and (3) Democratic Representatives. However we have (2) Democratic Senators.

Two years is already a very short tenure, and they they spend time working on reelection. If they were no longer able to serve, the House would be worthless -- full of junior people with no influence to be able to do anything and everyone constantly having to learn how Washington operates. Do you want your representatives to do work, or spend all their time campaigning, then learning how Washington works?

90% of the time Congress is reelected -- that means the voters in those states like who they are being represented by. and can actually send to Washington people they want.

I'm strongly opposed to term limits for congress. If you have an issue with the people in Congress, maybe look at why the incumbent always beats the challenger...

 

That the public doesn't do this....

Is a reason for term limits.

Personally, I favor changing Senate terms to 3 - 4yr with a limit of 3 terms. And a change in Congressional terms to 3 yr with a limit to 2 terms. Stagger elections so there's a body of knowledge maintained in the respective chambers.

Your House members are that way because of redistricting over time.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analys...-redistricting

Note, I didn't use the "gerrymandering" excuse.

They spend all their time campaigning now with no limits! What's your point? The main reason a person is reelected is because of party affiliation not because of anything they actually did. Which is a throwback to the point @z31maniac made about the public being unengaged and uninformed.

I think term limits are one of the first steps in blowing up the system.

 

Agreed. Solution: limit service to one term of a longer duration. 5 years? 10, perhaps?


This isn't something that would be in my own personal best interest. Right now, every other ad on my station is a political ad, mostly of the negative-attack type. PACs and campaigns buy a lot of airtime, and they pay their bills on time. Broadcasters love election season, and I'd hate to see any kind of political reform that limits the abilities of corporations and politicians to spend money in this particular way.


Two reasons:

1: Large installed base of financial campaign supporters at re-election time.

2: Name-recognition among the electorate.



Apologies if you meant that as sarcasm, but I find that to be a sadly optimistic outlook.

 

why? why do you specifically care if a states wants to keep the same state representatives in congress? What exactly will limiting the time served of a Senator/Representative solve?


Good. VA is a red state but all the liberals that live/work in D.C, Richmond, and Norfolk have enough voting power to turn the state blue.

No they don't at least -- at least the Senate doesn't. and the representatives only have to campaign in their districts.

So what?

what will blowing up the system achieve. Maybe some of us aren't terrorists and like to set off bombs.

 

It was meant exactly as that... sarcasm.

In my travels I would estimate, at best, 25% of the people who can vote have a basic understanding of the issues or what their vote actually means. Maybe I'm being generous.

I'm sorry but anyone who starts off with "hang the bitch" or "he's nothing but a misogynist" isn't even going to get me to engage anymore. This country deserves better but is going to get what in the end, will be what a small majority wants.

We'll see which side wins.

 

So... is this real? KKK newspaper "The Crusader"
They have to know they are hurting Trump by publishing this.
Still, it makes me laugh a little.

 

I dont think the KKK cares if they hurt people...