Personally, I'm not against term limits per se, but that's why we have elections. It's people's own fault if they elect a shitty representative over and over.
I somewhat agree with this. So many people just vote for the name they know and that's just there own fault, but part of me feels like we need to protect ourselves on this one. With two unknown names it would force people to pay more attention to their policies/platforms instead of just voting for the recognizable name. Or it would just push voter turn out for midterm elections even lower.
It's also possible that people in certain areas *cough*Illinois*cough* have one political party (or individual or group within that party) that is so entrenched and has such a significant power base that any contender has little to no chance of mounting any significant opposition.
Lol. They never vote themselves pay decreases, don't hold themselves to the same health care requirements, and on and on. Who exactly is going to pass laws to limit their benefits?
Eight years. Stop electing senile, stupid old fucks who can actually remember when horses outnumbered cars on the roads.
That feels like a cop-out to me. If we had good younger candidates we'd be able to push the geriatrics aside whether they wanted to go or not.
I think 8 years is too short, and having it correspond with a presidential election year would be madness. I think the term should be long enough that the politician serves with 2 presidents.
You're the smartest person at a company and have been producing for a few years, you think that you will just run the CEO and VPs purely on merit? I agree with you in theory, but thats just not how it seems to work.
This is just getting pathetic. 1. 0% chance this accomplishes anything. 2. The election was a month ago, give it up already. 3. You're trying to undermine the entire electoral process. 4. Is this even legal? I know you can be a faithless elector, but a month later? 5. He said a couple mean things since the election and now you're aghast? What the fuck did you expect? 6. If you're trying to get something out of Trump behind the scenes your threat is meaningless and everyone knows it. You're fucking stupid for even trying. I get it, he's not a traditional conservative. Some people in his own party just don't like him on a personal level. Good thing the president doesn't have unlimited power. If you need to oppose him urge members of the house and state politicians to do so. You might just end up looking like an obstructionist jackass, and you might just get ignored, but it would at least be a lot less embarrassing than what you are doing right now.
Highly unlikely it accomplishes anything, but the chance is ever so slightly > 0% The election is on December 19. That is the election that picks the president. Nov 8 picks the electors. One of the Electoral College's express purposes is to prevent the election of a demagogue with "talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity". If you don't like the EC, by all means swear in Clinton as the winner of the direct vote, but if you're going to keep it you can't pick and choose which parts of the EC help your candidate and abandon the rest. On a Federal level it's 100% legal, and in fact there's nothing in the constitution that requires or even expects that citizens would vote for a candidate directly. In the old days the electors were picked by the various state legislatures. On a state level it varies state to state. Many states have laws intended to bind the elector's choice to the outcome of the vote in that state, but these laws have never been challenged in the courts so we don't know how they'd hold up. In the states that don't have these laws, there's nothing preventing a faithless elector. As for the month later comment, the election is on Dec 19, so that's the only time an elector can be faithless. Without getting into the fact that Trump's actions since the election have given the Republicans enough to impeach him on day 1 should they want to, for many electors I expect this is exactly what they expected. The slate of electors in each state is done by party, so these are Republican electors, not necessarily Trump electors, and I suspect a good number of them have no love for Trump, and several outright despise him, and have for the entire campaign. They're not trying to get something out of Trump. Electors are often just normal, if highly politically engaged, folks, not power brokers who would seek or be interested in political leverage over the President.
What is troubling is that despite his actions, the chances of a Republican congress impeaching him is about the same as me traveling to Mars in the next 10 years. I cannot be the only person that felt extremely uneasy when he claimed that the President cannot have a conflict of interest. He definitely can have conflicts of interest, especially when his adult children are running his alleged multi-billion dollar international conglomerate. But with the current state of affairs with our Congress - Trump might as well be right.
My question is why is everyone so worried about a potential conflict of interest when you seemingly didn't care about Clinton's repeated corruption over the course of 30 years? Nothing has happened yet with Trump. It's all 'he could do this or that'. New flash: Anyone who is president has 'potential conflicts of interest' and ways to abuse power for personal wealth. If anything, you're more incentivized to do so if you aren't already worth billions. He relied on his kids' help all campaign and I'm sure he'll ask for their opinion while he's in office. I don't really trust Trump and I'm not totally sure what he'll do, but I don't get the fear mongering over this when most, damn near all, of our politicians have repeatedly engaged in conflicts of interest that weren't just 'this could happen.' Anyway, just saying. He's a bit of a mad man so I wouldn't say it's out of the realm of possibility he'll do something that could get him impeached. Here's the thing though: Bush was a fucking disaster as a president and engaged in some of the most damaging lies to not only the general public, but congress as well. He did not get impeached. Obama hasn't been nearly as bad of a president as Bush, but he's also made some mind blowingly stupid foreign policy decisions, as well as instituting executive orders that were outright illegal, such as his executive orders on illegal immigration. Yeah, I don't really disagree with it in concept either, but it's a clear violation of the law and technically an abuse of power. Unsurprisingly, these types of executive orders ended up being mostly ineffective in practice. Trump will make mistakes for sure, all presidents do. It might be easier for him to get impeached because he's not well liked by the establishment, but even with that consideration, when you follow historical precedence it's going to take a lot more for him to get thrown out of office than people seem to want to accept.
Trump just selected an anti-science, fossil fuel-pimping twat to head the EPA. When I said he was an idiot, I meant that he is an ACTUAL idiot, not just that he says stupid things. This is proof.
I disagree. I think he knows exactly what he's doing. He tweets about bullshit that he knows will be great media bait while hoping no one sees the con job he's pulling on this country. I think every single thing he is doing is a calculated move to somehow help his own business interests. He has his fingers in everything.
That my issue: I don't give a fuck about HIS interests, I care about MY planet. He doesn't seem to care his country is fucking up everything the way they burn coal, he just hired a guy who encourages it. I just don't get how a person can be so stupid that every scientist on the planet disagrees with him and he tells them to go fuck themselves. It's not like climate change is a subject open for debate. He also promises an over 3000 mile wall along the border of the same country who took over a decade rebuilding the world trade centre. Not. Happening.
As I've said, I don't blindly trust Trump, not by a long shot. He will break campaign promises. That said, does it strike you as odd that he would run his entire campaign revolving around drawing attention to an issue he plans to exploit, more than anyone ever? I mean that's not impossible, but that's a hell of an odd plan. The media is already making shit up about corruption that hasn't happened while he isn't EVEN IN OFFICE YET. I'm guessing he will want to get reelected in 4 years, and he has virtually no chance if he uses the office for little other than accumulating more personal wealth. His controversial campaign also caused serious losses to his business interests, and he could have started taking far more campaign donations from corporate interests fairly early into his campaign as he was extending his lead over the republican field. He did not need to spend nearly as much of his own money as he did. Granted, he could easily make all those investments/losses up and then some throughout 4 years of a presidency, but this story has some serious holes in it. I guess this is the part where I'm being 'naive' again. There's a reason Hillary put some bullshit snippet on her campaign site, but mostly dodged the issue, as well as the other GOP runners. None of them wanted it so talked about throughout the election cycle, and that was visibly noticeable.
As defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary: cor·rup·tion kəˈrəpSH(ə)n/ noun 1. dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery As defined by Transparency International - "Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain" - http://www.transparency.org/what-is-corruption According to numerous sources, Donald Trump has brought up how wind farms in Scotland are obstructing the views of his privately owned golf courses to a British politician Nigel Farage. "Donald Trump urged the interim leader of a British political party and his key associates to lobby against the development of windfarms, which he has fought against having built near his Scottish golf courses. The president-elect said he was “dismayed that his beloved Scotland has become overrun with ugly wind farms which he believes are a blight on the stunning landscape”, according to a member of the delegation that came with the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, to meet Trump on the first weekend after hid shock election win." https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...llies-against-windfarms-golf-courses-scotland When our politicians leverage their stature and our countries might to push for any causes, I expect it to be for America's interest - not private. If this is him before he has taken office, I wonder how he will be when he actually has power.
Can't say I'm surprised given the two foreign policy platforms of the candidates. It doesn't change the information therein, which I think is good to know, especially given how many people were still in denial of what an absolute piece of shit Hillary has always been. I also wouldn't be surprised if wikileaks knew Russia provided it and didn't give a shit considering the pedophile charges to Assange and their link to Hillary. As for the Trump/Russia conspiracy theories that will inevitably spiral from this... let them unwind. The wikileaks showed Hillary was stupid/corrupt enough to give a $60 billion weapons deal to countries murdering civilians at home, starting wars with other nations, and funding ISIS, but let's see what shit people can come up with. If there is any solid evidence for willful collusion with the Trump campaign that emerges, that actually is something that could get Trump impeached. If Russia did it on their own, that won't matter. The leaks are also related to Hillary's continued ineptitude at keeping information properly contained.