Sounds like you would also be against term limits for the president. Or are you good with term limits to limit the power of individuals in government?
Biden Plan to End Online Ammo Sales
- Thread starter 3855WIN
- Start date
HandgunHunter
Well-known member
I just wish all of those who don’t like America had some more worldly experience..a few weeks or months in some other countries may change people’s outlook...can’t afford to travel? The military is hiring and then you will get free college too
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I am not sure how you get rid of parties and keep a 1st amendment. There are already thousands of "non-partisan" elected positions in the US - and if you have lived in an area that had some you know that the groups flood you with information of which "slate" of folks to vote for that mimic the traditional party designations. Freedom of speech and freedom of association have to be our most cherished rights. Giving these up is a parallel logic with those willing to give up the 2nd amend to protect safety, the 4th amendment to protect us from terrorism and freedom of religion to protect us from "intolerance".
We have a free press, we have elections, the answer is not a government orchestrated and curated political process (which I argue is the opposite of freedom) - it is for the people to stand up at the polls and vote the change they want. People know who they are voting for an what they are getting - we can't both be free and protect people from their own wishes.
Red Fox
Well-known member
Term limits would be a good start, I just don't see how they get so rich when all they have done is be in office.
Any of what they are putting forward is not going to do anything to stop any shootings or help anyone
Any of what they are putting forward is not going to do anything to stop any shootings or help anyone
Panda Bear
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2019
- Messages
- 845
Randy and April
Dont hold back. Tell us what you really think
Dont hold back. Tell us what you really think
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I am not a fan of term limits on the legislative branch as I fear it will be the end of effective democracy and we will just be run by the permanent bureaucracy while the annual sea of clueless electees get led around by the nose and placated for 4 years. As for the executive branch (pres & govs) I can see the pros out weighing the harms in those circumstances, particularly given the "king"-like status of the figure head so I am ok either way on those.
The real answer is to limit the power and size of government so that whomever is in office can do limited harm to our freedom - but sadly there is no way we are going back on this point.
Jape
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,724
Could not have said it better. The beautiful thing about America is that we get to dictate what happens to it, good or bad.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Ok. Time to cue the herding cats GIF.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I just wish all of those who don’t like America had some more worldly experience..a few weeks or months in some other countries may change people’s outlook...can’t afford to travel? The military is hiring and then you will get free college too
Always room for improvement in every system. I've done a decent amount of traveling, comparing the US to another country is pretty much impossible as there really isn't an apples to apples comparison, maybe Europe as a whole including the Non-EU member states?
In lots of developed countries college + grad school is free... just saying.
As as fixes to the system, it's crazy how much time our elected officials spend fund raising... most absolutely hate it, there are numerous interviews and stories from junior congressmen and women who essentially say that working in congress is basically like working in a spammy call center where you fill your days calling rich folks for money. Therefore what about cracking down on money in politics, all PACs are illegal, hard cap of $200,000 on congressional campaigns, $500,000 on senate races, and $40,000,000 on presidential races. Networks have to agree to equal air time to all candidates (maybe polling top 2% or something) in or to get their FCC license.
LaSportsman
Well-known member
I don't see a way around the entrenched 2 party system but that has led to the politicization of every issue. Public Land shouldn't be a party issue. COVID shouldn't be a party issue. We could all add to the list. I was a Louisiana voter for the Edwin Edwards/David Duke gubernatorial election with an emphasis on guber. I have similar feelings today about lack of choice in upcoming elections.
geetar
Well-known member
There are some photos on another thread here that would work good for the logo.How about the Dead Beached Whale Party? Slogan would be "We may stink, but not as bad as the other guys"
rtraverdavis
Well-known member
I’m no expert, but it seems logical to me to eliminate all private and corporate donations, and create a system in which campaigns are publicly financed. So candidates get their start through grass-roots campaigns, gather support, and reach a benchmark to be eligible for publicly-funded campaign money to continue their run. Seems to me all of the big money donors (whether they be corporations or individuals) hold far more sway over elected representatives “convictions” and votes that their general constituency like you or me or 99% of the population. If we take the money out of the equation, it makes sense to me that the best people with the best ideas would win, rather than those who can raise the most money. But, I’m a layman, and know very little about the inner workings of elections.
I also like the idea of ranked voting, as a way to diminish the power of the two-party system BS.
Western Traveler1
Well-known member
Over the course of history our Countrie's system has worked like a pendulum. Too far in one direction or another and change comes. We need to maintain the electoral college. We are not a majority rules country.
As to a 3 party system, sure then we can have 2/3 unhappy with election results.
As to a 3 party system, sure then we can have 2/3 unhappy with election results.
Sounds like we both want smaller government and less governmental power. Our current congressional system is about as close as you can get to a lifetime appointment....with over 96% incumbment re-election rates. I don't see any way around that besides term limits. Make it 8 years total or 12, or whatever is determined the proper time limit. But we aren't functioning very well with basically lifetime appointments. Sometimes it is more than a lifetime with many seats getting passed on to the next generation.
HandgunHunter
Well-known member
one thing we defiantly don’t need is more free stuff.
what we need more of is people willing to put forth effort and sacrifice to get what they want.....
Western Traveler1
Well-known member
Individually funded campaigns with equal air time on all airwaves or something to that effect.
Doublecluck
Well-known member
Maximum campaign contribution allowed by law, $100 bucks per person or entity
Irrelevant
Well-known member
apparently I need to link it again. https://www.movetoamend.org/amendment
Section 2. [Money is Not Free Speech]
Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.
Federal, State, and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.
The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
With dramatic reduction in campaign spending you will just vest more power in CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NY Times, and WSJ to set the agenda. The problem is not too much money running too many ads. The problem is that for the most part you aren't voting for a person to use personal discretion anymore, you are voting for a proxy to the relevant party block. People need to start voting for people who will vote with their local residents' interests, not some grand party platform. Until that is fixed, no "reform" will change the outcome. The one campaign limit I fully support is that you may only give funds to a candidate running for a seat that you can vote for. No Texas money flooding a South Dakota election to get another vote for the GOP or Dem party.
beginnerhunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,320
This is another reason not to let the elected officials YOU vote for off the hook. There are a lot of folks enthusiastic about voting for a party that hates the 2nd amendment. And I totally support weighing the pros and cons for a candidate and ultimately supporting a candidate that's against gun rights or public lands. But you need to continue to press them on those issues.
Honestly, the GOP is toast and you can pretty much bet we're going to get more gun laws in the next 2 years or longer. Our best shot at stopping the worst of it is probably going to be Rocky Mountain Democrats (especially Hickenlooper/Romanoff, Tester, Bullock, Heinrich, maybe even Sinema).
Honestly, the GOP is toast and you can pretty much bet we're going to get more gun laws in the next 2 years or longer. Our best shot at stopping the worst of it is probably going to be Rocky Mountain Democrats (especially Hickenlooper/Romanoff, Tester, Bullock, Heinrich, maybe even Sinema).
Similar threads
