Originally Posted by Guest

Are you referring to a Unicameral legislature?
Nebraska operates on that principle and the state of Minnesota considered the idea.

However you are just not going to get away from us versus them.

I don't believe the problem is Democrats v Republicans but the diminished caliber of politician running today coupled with the continuing corruption of our government

Politicians had always been concerned with their self-interest but once they had the decency to leave a little on the bone for the rest of us.

In short this nation faces a critical lack of leadership crisis.

i had often wondered why as an additional check and balances there wan't a committee of private citizens to oversee the politicians and the overseers who all fail to honor their duties and responsibilities

Personal Best Regards:

No...I meant the 2 PARTY system...Ds and Rs.

What is so evil about our two party system? It makes it appear that we have choices...but we don't. They place hand picked candidates that BOTH work for them in front of us and say "choose the lesser of these two evils". That's not an election. It's not a government either. It's corrupt all the way from the top to the bottom....we really DO need a "French Revolution"...off with their heads. They STOLE $20 trillion PLUS whatever was in the SS trust fund. Trump WILL steal even more.

Originally Posted by Guest

The pivotal issue here is that Senators would no longer be able to sell their influence to outsiders. I like the idea so far but like most political issues a deeper look is required.

Trump is for term limits but look at the resistance he is meeting on bi-partisan issues. do you think these senators will vote themselves out of a job.

a national referendum is need to the question of term limits and/or repealing the 17th Amendment

Personal Best Regards:

Repealing the 17th Amendment is, as it says, a Constitutional Amendment, which can be done in one of 2 ways:

1) "Article 5": States call a Constitutional Convention ("Con Con"); draft and then go back to States and ratify; or

2) Congress drafts the amendment and states ratify (I think); don't expect Congress to turn Senate elections back over to the states. More possible through Con Con.

Start knocking on those doors and making those phone calls...

Originally Posted by Guest

Come on Jim...you KNOW they're ALL crooked and corrupt. Even the state legislators. If they're in the D or R party...they're corrupt. The party won't put them on the ballot if they haven't pledged allegiance.

PLEASE READ THE 2ND POST -- the part that starts with "It doesn't matter how corrupt...."

.

Originally Posted by Guest

PLEASE READ THE 2ND POST -- the part that starts with "It doesn't matter how corrupt...."

.

It DOES matter that EVERYONE is corrupt. What's the difference WHO puts them there...money WILL influence the decisions.

The senate picks the SCOTUS judges...the justices are ALL corrupt...they ALL "play ball". Voting doesn't matter when EVERYONE running is corrupt.

The ONLY way you're going to stop the femonazi's...is to throw out the women and replace them with men. ALL of them.

Originally Posted by Guest

Every issue cuts and kicks so people are forced to choose between the best of the worse

Senators both Democrats and Republicans are not earning their pay. and given the invented boondoggles they are costing us much more. If they are not corrupt when they campaign by the time they are elected they have been indoctrinated in Washinton's ways.

Perhaps, the ideal situation is to have voters granted the right that if they fail to produce, live up to their campaign promises, they can fire them immediately

Personal Best Regards:

Another issue is the rampant gerrymandering done by both sides. A statewide vote on Senators cures, at least, that problem.

COPUFF

Originally Posted by Guest

Come on Jim...you KNOW they're ALL crooked and corrupt. Even the state legislators. If they're in the D or R party...they're corrupt. The party won't put them on the ballot if they haven't pledged allegiance.

I'm not saying that it would totally eliminate all corruption, but it would reduce it significantly.

IMHO, and I believe this was the opinion of the founders as well, the larger the population being represented, the less they really know about the candidates. If we're electing someone for the local city council, there's a chance that he might be your next door neighbor and you would know a lot about him. Someone running as a state representative from your town is again, very well known to make of the residents.

A person running for the house of representatives is not as well know by the voters because a district is larger than a city or town, but the founders felt that he was close enough to the electors so that they couldn't easily be fooled. I'm not sure that's the case any longer.

A person running for The United States Senate is only going to be well known to a relatively small percentage of voters in that state. By well known, I don't mean his campaign rhetoric or his stated positions, I mean well known like your neighbors or local merchants. That is why the founders decided that it's a better idea to trust the people that we elect directly, and know very well, to choose who should represent us as a state.

It's also part of the reason for the electoral college. The thing is that we really don't know very much about the people running for president. We only know what the campaigns put out about them, what they promise to do and what their positions on various issues supposedly are. Some may say that we can look at their records. The problem with that is that Congress is so convoluted today that members records are obscured by trickery employed in both houses. Some people have no political record so we really only know what we're told. It's also a lot of work to dig and find out anything about these people.

We elect local people to represent us and we can clearly see what kind of job they do. I would trust these people to elect a senator to represent me more than I would my fellow citizens who have no idea who they are electing.

Originally Posted by Guest

Another issue is the rampant gerrymandering done by both sides. A statewide vote on Senators cures, at least, that problem.

COPUFF

Hey dumb b!tch...gerrymandering was already discussed...if you weren't a whiney b!tch who can't handle the truth...you wouldn't have half the people here on "ignore" and miss all the good talk and ideas that go on.

Now watch...she'll prove she's a b!tch AND a liar...she'll reply.

Hey peter-puffer I've got you. I can say ANYTHING about you I want...and you can't reply...because it would show you're ANOTHER of the lying b!tches here who say one thing and do another.

A typical woman.

Originally Posted by Guest

I'm not saying that it would totally eliminate all corruption, but it would reduce it significantly.

IMHO, and I believe this was the opinion of the founders as well, the larger the population being represented, the less they really know about the candidates. If we're electing someone for the local city council, there's a chance that he might be your next door neighbor and you would know a lot about him. Someone running as a state representative from your town is again, very well known to make of the residents.

A person running for the house of representatives is not as well know by the voters because a district is larger than a city or town, but the founders felt that he was close enough to the electors so that they couldn't easily be fooled. I'm not sure that's the case any longer.

A person running for The United States Senate is only going to be well known to a relatively small percentage of voters in that state. By well known, I don't mean his campaign rhetoric or his stated positions, I mean well known like your neighbors or local merchants. That is why the founders decided that it's a better idea to trust the people that we elect directly, and know very well, to choose who should represent us as a state.

It's also part of the reason for the electoral college. The thing is that we really don't know very much about the people running for president. We only know what the campaigns put out about them, what they promise to do and what their positions on various issues supposedly are. Some may say that we can look at their records. The problem with that is that Congress is so convoluted today that members records are obscured by trickery employed in both houses. Some people have no political record so we really only know what we're told. It's also a lot of work to dig and find out anything about these people.

We elect local people to represent us and we can clearly see what kind of job they do. I would trust these people to elect a senator to represent me more than I would my fellow citizens who have no idea who they are electing.

No it won't. When EVERYONE in a system is corrupt...you CAN'T fix that system. It needs to go. We need to purge the entire government leadership and start over without parties. It won't happen. We NEED a "french Revolution" to FIX our government.

Of course that's true...you can only "know" about 50 people...past that and you just don't have the brainpower to keep track of any more. A lot of people need a "media", a source for information...the problem with that is bias and accuracy. EVERYONE is bias and removing it from a "report" is very hard.

So a FEW people will know him "personally"...what about the other 100,000? The other million? They don't KNOW him...they know...again...what the biased media tells them. It's really the SAME only on a smaller scale.

How well do you REALLY "know" those from your town? I could be your neighbor here in the Villages...IF I'm your neighbor...how well do you KNOW me? People put on a facade...they have a public image...many a very different in private.

We're ALL fooled...that hasn't changed.

You can't trust ANY of them...they are ALL corrupt. The party is corrupt and everyone in it. LEADERSHIP roles of course...I'm not saying the secretary or janitor are corrupt.

The EC was formed to give "the system" absolute control over elections. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHOM WE VOTE FOR...THE ELECTORS CAN VOTE FOR ANYONE! They're pledged to their party...but they ARE free to vote for ANYONE. I can't overemphasize that point. An independent will never "seize control" because the EC will prevent it. HELL...we don't even need the EC because the electronic voting machines can be programmed to cheat.

You KNOW what the media tells you...and the media IS biased. ALL you need to know is...do they have a D or R after their name? If they do...they're corrupt...guaranteed...Trump is corrupt too...he's "playing ball". Don't believe the media circus, it's ALL distraction, misdirection, theater to keep the population divided.

They transfer money from the treasury to corporations...or to poor people who give it to corporations. That is what your congressmen and senators DO.

WHAT kind of job DO they do? Outside a small WHITE town...they screw things up. ALL the large cities are minority dominated...the people AND the "leaders". And they're ALL falling apart and broke...JUST LIKE THE COUNTRIES THE MINORITIES CAME FROM.

They're ALL corrupt at that level of government...does it matter WHO elects the crook? He's still a crook.

Originally Posted by Guest

I'm not saying that it would totally eliminate all corruption, but it would reduce it significantly.

IMHO, and I believe this was the opinion of the founders as well, the larger the population being represented, the less they really know about the candidates. If we're electing someone for the local city council, there's a chance that he might be your next door neighbor and you would know a lot about him. Someone running as a state representative from your town is again, very well known to make of the residents.

A person running for the house of representatives is not as well know by the voters because a district is larger than a city or town, but the founders felt that he was close enough to the electors so that they couldn't easily be fooled. I'm not sure that's the case any longer.

A person running for The United States Senate is only going to be well known to a relatively small percentage of voters in that state. By well known, I don't mean his campaign rhetoric or his stated positions, I mean well known like your neighbors or local merchants. That is why the founders decided that it's a better idea to trust the people that we elect directly, and know very well, to choose who should represent us as a state.

It's also part of the reason for the electoral college. The thing is that we really don't know very much about the people running for president. We only know what the campaigns put out about them, what they promise to do and what their positions on various issues supposedly are. Some may say that we can look at their records. The problem with that is that Congress is so convoluted today that members records are obscured by trickery employed in both houses. Some people have no political record so we really only know what we're told. It's also a lot of work to dig and find out anything about these people.

We elect local people to represent us and we can clearly see what kind of job they do. I would trust these people to elect a senator to represent me more than I would my fellow citizens who have no idea who they are electing.

With celebrities like Donald John Trump running for office though it is very hard to know what they will do when and if they get into political power.

Originally Posted by Guest

With celebrities like Donald John Trump running for office though it is very hard to know what they will do when and if they get into political power.

They will do as they're told...like all the rest before them. The president isn't the most powerful man in the country...he's a CEO working for the "Board of Directors"...a talking head. He gets to ACT like he's the boss...just like a CEO.

Term limits already exist. Senators - 6 years. Congressmen - 2 years & President - 4 years. It is up to the electorate to hold their politicians accountable by voting them out. Term limits existed under The Articles of Confederation and were removed when the current Constitution was authored in 1787. Term limits would only serve to limit those individuals who ARE abiding by Constitution mandates.

Originally Posted by Guest

With celebrities like Donald John Trump running for office though it is very hard to know what they will do when and if they get into political power.

We really don't know what anyone running for office will do, and the more people that have to vote for a person the more likely it is that many of them actually know much about him/her.

Once a person becomes a member of Congress it's even more difficult because of all the political trickery that Congress uses to divert attention from what they are actually doing.

We pretty much know the kinds of things that professional politicians will do. That is why the founders tried to set up a government of the people. The idea was to have everyday citizens go to Washington for a short time to represent a constituency. That person would go back to their jobs after their term of service was over. The founders never wanted people to spend their lives in government.

Originally Posted by Guest

Term limits already exist. Senators - 6 years. Congressmen - 2 years & President - 4 years. It is up to the electorate to hold their politicians accountable by voting them out. Term limits existed under The Articles of Confederation and were removed when the current Constitution was authored in 1787. Term limits would only serve to limit those individuals who ARE abiding by Constitution mandates.

Those are not term limits. Those are the definition of a term. The only one that has a term limit is president and that is two terms. All the others can serve an unlimited number of terms.

I was not in favor of term limits for a long time. I felt that the voters should be able to choose whoever they like to represent them. It was after I learned about the trickery used by members of Congress and the various ploys they use to avoid votes and to allow members to vote one way even though they feel another way that I came to the conclusion that term limits are necessary.

Congress is not doing what most people think they are doing. None of it is real. It is all smoke and mirrors designed to keep those who play "the game" in power. As long as a member of Congress goes along with the leadership he will get the support to keep getting re-elected. Sometimes even party lines are crossed to keep someone who will upset the apple cart from getting elected.

They have us all fooled.

Originally Posted by Guest

It DOES matter that EVERYONE is corrupt. What's the difference WHO puts them there...money WILL influence the decisions.

The senate picks the SCOTUS judges...the justices are ALL corrupt...they ALL "play ball". Voting doesn't matter when EVERYONE running is corrupt.

The ONLY way you're going to stop the femonazi's...is to throw out the women and replace them with men. ALL of them.

.

You need to study

The structure of politics

Corruption flourishes in a Type 2 environment, and all the things you complain about can be resolved more to your satisfaction by eliminating/minimizing Type 2 laws.

Since the Federal Government is the biggest inflictor of Type 2 laws, returning Senator selection to the State Legislature is a way to start reducing Type 2 laws -- "It takes a lot of the People Magazine Type 2 Femo-Fascists out of the loop".



.

Originally Posted by Guest

Those are not term limits. Those are the definition of a term. The only one that has a term limit is president and that is two terms. All the others can serve an unlimited number of terms.

I was not in favor of term limits for a long time. I felt that the voters should be able to choose whoever they like to represent them. It was after I learned about the trickery used by members of Congress and the various ploys they use to avoid votes and to allow members to vote one way even though they feel another way that I came to the conclusion that term limits are necessary.

Congress is not doing what most people think they are doing. None of it is real. It is all smoke and mirrors designed to keep those who play "the game" in power. As long as a member of Congress goes along with the leadership he will get the support to keep getting re-elected. Sometimes even party lines are crossed to keep someone who will upset the apple cart from getting elected.

They have us all fooled.

Thank you for dealing civilly with this post -- its naivety was heart breaking, even by this board's standards.

Meanwhile, I urge you to study the mechanics of repealing the 17th, and how that can reduce the Type 2 legislation is the source of government sh*t.


How to rid the Senate of Femo-Fascist idiots

The structure of politics




.

Originally Posted by Guest

Those are not term limits. Those are the definition of a term. The only one that has a term limit is president and that is two terms. All the others can serve an unlimited number of terms.

I was not in favor of term limits for a long time. I felt that the voters should be able to choose whoever they like to represent them. It was after I learned about the trickery used by members of Congress and the various ploys they use to avoid votes and to allow members to vote one way even though they feel another way that I came to the conclusion that term limits are necessary.

Congress is not doing what most people think they are doing. None of it is real. It is all smoke and mirrors designed to keep those who play "the game" in power. As long as a member of Congress goes along with the leadership he will get the support to keep getting re-elected. Sometimes even party lines are crossed to keep someone who will upset the apple cart from getting elected.

They have us all fooled.

It's ALL "trickery"...it doesn't matter who gets elected when the one being elected IS CORRUPT!!! If a person is running under the D or R party...they ARE corrupt already. They vow allegiance to the party. It's HOW 3 men CAN "control" a 535 member Congress.

AND to pillage the treasury. They've stolen $20 trillion and left US with the bill...why can't you see that?

They have ENOUGH of us fooled. EVERYONE who votes D or R is fooled.

Originally Posted by Guest

Thank you for dealing civilly with this post -- its naivety was heart breaking, even by this board's standards.

Meanwhile, I urge you to study the mechanics of repealing the 17th, and how that can reduce the Type 2 legislation is the source of government sh*t.


How to rid the Senate of Femo-Fascist idiots

The structure of politics


[/SIZE]

.

You're not kidding...now you see what women REALLY know about politics...and why they don't belong here discussing it.

Politics isn't about the people...it's about the plan.