Seth Bodnar - independent US Senate candidate

[SAJ-99]

It seems to me that so far the Montana Republican Congressmen and Senators are supporters of our public lands. I don't think there is any reason to think Kurt Alme is going to be against public lands.

Maybe you have different info.

Please define 'For' and 'Against'. I think those definitions matter.

 

[Gulf of America]

It's so interesting how one's locale and experience shifts how one lands on that.

I've drifted left federally - though, from my perspective, I think the right has just kinda drifted away from me. Meanwhile, at the state level, sometimes I feel I'm ready to fill in every single (R) bubble without knowing a single fact about the individual or even what position i'm filling out an (R) bubble for.

I think the lesson in your experience vs Montana is the same - single party rule where the only competitive races are primaries are bad for everyone, regardless of how ideologically you align with either party.

 

[BuzzH]

To your point of term limits, if you scroll down through Bodnar's platform, he is for term limits and age limits.

Link here - https://www.sethformontana.com/Platform

View attachment 413366

Personally, I'm not in favor of term limits. Looking at the MT legislature and term limits, we have a lot of newbies who have no idea how a legislature is to be run, so they get led around by the lobbyists. At the Congressional level, it would be even worse. We would have new Congressional members who would have no idea how things work, only to be directed by lobbyists and staffers. It would be a field day for lobbyists if we had short term limits at the Federal level. If the term limits were longer than in MT, maybe it would work.

At the time I voted for our term limits, yet in the totality, I think it was a mistake. Our legislature and their accomplishments have not improved with term limits. It was a feel good vote, at least in my opinion.

I would support age limits. Especially on the Federal bench and the USSC.

Term limits no, age limits, 100%.

Part of the problem we have is old gummers trying to keep everyone in 1950 with the same old crap policies. "We've always it done it this way"..."well, it worked 60 years ago", is no way to lead.

If their way worked so well, why are we in the mess we are now?

Why is housing all but unattainable for young folks?

Why is Healthcare a wreck?

Why have wages failed to keep up with costs?

Why is inflation so high?

Why are public lands under constant threat?

Why are LWCF funds constantly attacked?

Why is our infrastructure in shambles?

Why are our land management agencies not fully funded and fully staffed?

And on and on and on.

The bigger question is why do a majority of these people still have a job?

Get these old losers out...time to pass the torch.

No way in hell younger people with other policies can do any worse.

 

[MT Super Puncher]

Curious - is that due to wildlife/conservation? Or lack of action on conservative issues? Or both?

I struggle willingly sending more R to the state legislature. We have an OUTRAGEOUS income tax - no action by them in several years of control of the legislature and gov office. Further, if all they are going to do is chum up with lobbyists, moga board members, and special interest - i personally have no interest in sending them.

It's a lot of things. The income tax is a good point, constantly talking about tax relief but zero meaningful action taken.

Mostly it's a public lands access issue. There's big talk about property rights, and I'm all for property rights. The difference is I also believe in protecting the property rights we all have as public lands owners as staunchly as every other property right.

 

[MT Super Puncher]

The is an artificial constraint. A person can come in and tell you exactly what you want to hear and then you discover they weren't born there so it changes your view/vote? This is what I mean when I say people find reasons not to like candidates and then complain that no one represents them.

Term limits are both good and bad. It takes a while for people to learn how the processes work in DC. Regardless whether you dislike the process, it has and will always exist in some form. However, age limits and term limits need to be debated.

I don't think it is an artificial constraint at all in Montana. We have a special state, and the amount of outside influence trying to ruin it is astonishing. Look at Bozeman for example. 30 years ago, it was small town Montana. Now, walking down Main street in boots, jeans, and a ball cap and you look out of place with all the transplants. So when it comes to my local politics, it matters to me where someone is from, and I doubt I'm alone in that thinking.

 

[SAJ-99]

I don't think it is an artificial constraint at all in Montana. We have a special state, and the amount of outside influence trying to ruin it is astonishing. Look at Bozeman for example. 30 years ago, it was small town Montana. Now, walking down Main street in boots, jeans, and a ball cap and you look out of place with all the transplants. So when it comes to my local politics, it matters to me where someone is from, and I doubt I'm alone in that thinking.

Most of those people don't live there or vote. I don't doubt you are alone in your thinking either. What I'm saying is it is a crutch to prevent citizens of the state from doing work and making hard choices. And after it gives you someone to blame.

 

[MT Super Puncher]

To your point of term limits, if you scroll down through Bodnar's platform, he is for term limits and age limits.

Link here - https://www.sethformontana.com/Platform

View attachment 413366

Personally, I'm not in favor of term limits. Looking at the MT legislature and term limits, we have a lot of newbies who have no idea how a legislature is to be run, so they get led around by the lobbyists. At the Congressional level, it would be even worse. We would have new Congressional members who would have no idea how things work, only to be directed by lobbyists and staffers. It would be a field day for lobbyists if we had short term limits at the Federal level. If the term limits were longer than in MT, maybe it would work.

At the time I voted for our term limits, yet in the totality, I think it was a mistake. Our legislature and their accomplishments have not improved with term limits. It was a feel good vote, at least in my opinion.

I would support age limits. Especially on the Federal bench and the USSC.

A couple of points. Legislation isn't that complicated. I think the effect of "newbies" is overblown. But 3 terms in each chamber seems sufficient to me.

Strongly disagree on the term limits for the judiciary. Bodnar's position on that seems like it was written by a college student who took one class on constitutional law and failed to grasp anything about the legal system. "No new majority opinions" for judges over 75? So if you're over 75 you can write a dissent or a concurrence but not a majority opinion? That position makes zero sense. The partisanship at SCOTUS is overblown. Over the last decade, around half of the SCOTUS decisions are unanimous, and if you throw in 8-1 and 7-2 decisions, it gets closer to 3/4ths. Regardless of their political affiliation, it has been my experience that the vast majority of federal judges I've been in front of are extremely qualified individuals, and most decisions have a sound basis under the existing law for the outcome that occurs. Not always, but still a pretty good batting average.

 

[Forkyfinder]

The income tax is a good point, constantly talking about tax relief but zero meaningful action taken.

Yeah. And i think that needs thrown in their faces. Im done voting for them for the forseeable futute.

The gop could try and do some conservative things. Instead of fellating MOGA and establishing protectionism for their line of work.

 

[MT Super Puncher]

Most of those people don't live there or vote. I don't doubt you are alone in your thinking either. What I'm saying is it is a crutch to prevent citizens of the state from doing work and making hard choices. And after it gives you someone to blame.

Probably not wrong, but it underscores the bigger problem that a lot of regular folks in Montana who would actually make good legislators want nothing to do with politics because of how hyper partisan it has become. And I don't blame them.

 

[SAJ-99]

Probably not wrong, but it underscores the bigger problem that a lot of regular folks in Montana who would actually make good legislators want nothing to do with politics because of how hyper partisan it has become. And I don't blame them.

I'm not sure it is partisanship or just selfishness. Trump has causes a lot of Republicans to have an existential crisis.
Fiscal Discipline- Always....just not when my guy is in charge and i'm getting a benefit.
States Rights - Absolutely, unless my guy wants to trample on "coastal elites"
No more wars- yes, unless my guy starts it.
Rule of Law - sounds good, unless I can get in on that corruption.

We can probably do the same thing at the state level with Gianforte. Trump didn't change the party as much as reveal the beliefs of the subgroups that make up the party. That is causing some angst, and rightfully so.

Dems have a different set of selfish benefits they wish for, but they aren't fully in charge so we will have to list those later.

 

[jimh406]

We are living in alternate realities due to what people are reading/hearing, but that doesn't stop people from being sure they are right.

In other news, I got a political ad in the mail from Bodnar that specifically went after the D candidate that won her primary for not having as much money. Is that good or bad? No, I didn't notice who paid for the ad but by now the rest of you probably got one, too.

 

[406dn]

We are living in alternate realities due to what people are reading/hearing, but that doesn't stop people from being sure they are right.

In other news, I got a political ad in the mail from Bodnar that specifically went after the D candidate that won her primary for not having as much money. Is that good or bad? No, I didn't notice who paid for the ad but by now the rest of you probably got one, too.

Yes, I got the same mailer. Money in politics is a reality, and has always been that way. It's gotten worse, since Citizen's United. More than the obscene amount of money, it's the ability to shield the real identity of the source of the money, that bothers me most.

A Senate candidate that only raises $59k should take that as a hint that their support is non existent.