Political Discussions for "Adults"

rostasi · 08-06-2020, 07:46 PM

Thighland (ruled by Suzanne Somers)

TheBig3 · 08-06-2020, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WWWP

Abolish the presidency.

I think we did in 2010.

SGR · 08-06-2020, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raime

No, more like give Presidents less power, and impose term limits in congress.

Presidents have slowly gathered power over the years. I'm all for cutting it back.

Term limits sound good to me in theory. But would it solve the underlying problems that we have? Or would it simply mean that the lobbying interests have to get another candidate beholden to them every 4/8 years? What happens when (don't laugh) we actually have a decent congressman/congresswoman that does a respectable job and doesn't take big money from lobbying groups?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

I think we did in 2010.

?

Raime · 08-06-2020, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rostasi

Thighland (ruled by Suzanne Somers)

You call those thighs?

OccultHawk · 08-06-2020, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

I could get behind that, possibly. What would you replace it with? Some kind of open oligarchy instead of the faintly hidden oligarchy we have now?

Fair enough. They were all warmongers, I'm not a fan. But what of my list? Would you consider anything I mentioned "non-toxic"? Environmental conservation? Conservation of animals? Freeing slaves or perhaps opening relations and trade with other countries?

I’m not going to bother with pre-Nixon but **** every breath that genocidal psychopath ever took.

Raime · 08-06-2020, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

Presidents have slowly gathered power over the years. I'm all for cutting it back.

Term limits sound good to me in theory. But would it solve the underlying problems that we have? Or would it simply mean that the lobbying interests have to get another candidate beholden to them every 4/8 years? What happens when (don't laugh) we actually have a decent congressman/congresswoman that does a respectable job and doesn't take big money from lobbying groups?

Sometimes politicians have to make decisions that will piss off the populace for the greater good. If there are term limits then that can negate that. I won't argue with you about lobbying tho, as there are a lot of companies I dislike who have their money deep in the pockets of politicians.

rostasi · 08-06-2020, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raime

You call those thighs?

Well, it has been nearly 30 years.

WWWP · 08-06-2020, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

I could get behind that, possibly. What would you replace it with? Some kind of open oligarchy instead of the faintly hidden oligarchy we have now?

Communes, anarchist camps, mauraders, etc. No chemical warfare. No breeding.

OccultHawk · 08-06-2020, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WWWP

Communes, anarchist camps, mauraders, etc. No chemical warfare. No breeding.

Keep singing sister

SGR · 08-06-2020, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raime

Sometimes politicians have to make decisions that will piss off the populace for the greater good. If there are term limits then that can negate that. I won't argue with you about lobbying tho, as there are a lot of companies I dislike who have their money deep in the pockets of politicians.

One might think that if a congressional representative finally got the opportunity to wield power, and they were a benevolent actor with meaningful goals, they'd do everything in their power to achieve what they thought was right, even if they didn't think it would be popular and might cost them reelection. I suppose I'm not aware of the data on that or relevant examples. But I think I see what you're saying - without the incentive of future reelections, the theory goes that congressmen/congresswomen would be more likely to make decisions that won't be popular but are necessary. Our presidents are bound (after FDR) to no more than 8 years. How many presidents, in their second terms, have made decisions that you'd classify as 'for the greater good', since they don't have to fear losing reelection?

Even if you or I could name some, this is obviously not a completely valid comparison, as a President's actions reflect much more upon their political party as a whole than a random congressional representative's actions would.

08-06-2020, 07:46 PM	#7281 (permalink)
rostasi . Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 4,007	Thighland (ruled by Suzanne Somers)