As you can see, it actually makes the situation even worse in CA, as a new and more progressive batch of people is replacing the term-limited ones every election...
All politicians can be bought. The question is if buying the politician returns more value than the cost of buying them.
The idea behind term limits is to increase the cost: having to buy a politician each limit means more expense for those influencing government.
But there's another way to solve the problem: reducing politicians power. That way the return isn't greater than the cost.
The latter solution is a hundred-fold better than the former. Not only does it grant more freedom to the citizenry, think about the other side of the equation: "Politician X is bought of... so what?"
So you are very correct: Eliminate a lot of the government bullshit programs (power) and we won't even care if the Rockefellers have bought off a politician.
The problem is foreign interference in our government and culture. Not by Russia or China though. The real interference is from ‘the people who shall not be named’
The career congressmen are just the tip of the surface of the swamp. The real swamp is composed of government employees and contractors that are fairly isolated from the changes in D.C. The alphabet agencies and the Pentagon are the real reasons the swamp exists.
Well You add Term Limits + Jungle Primary and you get CA.
Term Limits are not that bad, they work. The Problem is often in CA the illegals are allowed to vote and its counted against those who live in the state. Why you ask because the Liberals believe even if you live in the state you get the 'right' to vote, even if you are not a legal citizen of the country. So pretty much breathing air in CA equates to a vote in elections.
The sad part is the 'so called' liberty groups have never sued the state to enforce Prop 8, and Prop 187 as well challenge the EO that allows the state to unionize. They say things to obtain money...but never go through on anything unless its a pet project they know they will win...so it keeps the racket going.
Haha. My girlfriend saw a picture of her the other day on TV and said she was pretty. I was like WTF. That horse faced skank isn't pretty in any sense. Mind you my girlfriend is Filipina so beauty can be very different between she and I. I mean she thinks I'm hot lol. But objectively there is nothing attractive about that cow which is why she got knocked up by a black man who hated whites and didn't bother to stick around.
Was it one of those old portrait photos? Women back then always looked "pretty" in photos because the photos were all re-touched. Even men's portraits had the impossibly smooth skin, flushed cheeks, bright eyes, etc. It was just trickery, like filters today, but back then it was pros doing it so it wasn't as overt as what we see people do to selfies today.
Why start there? I'd abort her commie parents. Hell I'd abort the parents of Lenin, Marx, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh, Hillary, Bernie, AOC, I could go on and on.
Dont freaking do slavery! It will cause 2 civial wars. The latter will be caused by a bunch of gay men in dresses trying and take over our country because they virtu signal for 200 year old black slaves. Dont ask, the future is weird. Just dont do it. Lol
Dude no kidding. Slavery was bad for black people but also bad for this country both in the past and in the future. Two races of people suffered heavily for that practice although to be fair it was already part of black culture so at the end of the day the US got the worst of it.
Aside from the moral implications of slavery, it wasn't beneficial economically for more than a very few people. It should have never been allowed and when it was abolished they should have been paid and sent back. The long-term effects have been disastrous.
That is so true, all of it. A few people got rich and benefited and today BLM is telling us they built this country. Yeah not even close. Not even capable.
Yah I never really got the slavery part. They do a war to make a freedom country, only to keep having slaves? Must've been politics, rich slave owners woulda supported the Brits if not I guess. I read that Washington banned Americans from going to get their own slaves, so all slaves brought in was from Africans selling Africans etc
Thomas Jefferson, who the Democrats love to revile as a devil these days, actually wanted to abolish slavery. If I remember correctly, he tried to write it into the first draft of the constitution but had to take it out to keep the southern states in. He also advocated a gradual abolishing of slavery, starting with outlawing the transport of new slaves from Africa into the states. He was worried about a wholesale, sudden freeing of slaves because of the rebellion in Haiti (they killed every white person, and many mixed). I don't know why he didn't free his own slaves, or even free them in his will as George Washington did, but he wasn't an evil person. Also, the famous "he had children with his slave" thing is not actually a fact, but a possibility. It was either him or his half-brother, who apparently enjoyed spending time in the slave cabins, which Thomas did not do.
And term limits!
It doesn't really help much. See California state term limits:
https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/content/elected-officials
As you can see, it actually makes the situation even worse in CA, as a new and more progressive batch of people is replacing the term-limited ones every election...
Separation of Economy and State
All politicians can be bought. The question is if buying the politician returns more value than the cost of buying them.
The idea behind term limits is to increase the cost: having to buy a politician each limit means more expense for those influencing government.
But there's another way to solve the problem: reducing politicians power. That way the return isn't greater than the cost.
The latter solution is a hundred-fold better than the former. Not only does it grant more freedom to the citizenry, think about the other side of the equation: "Politician X is bought of... so what?"
So you are very correct: Eliminate a lot of the government bullshit programs (power) and we won't even care if the Rockefellers have bought off a politician.
The problem is foreign interference in our government and culture. Not by Russia or China though. The real interference is from ‘the people who shall not be named’
I think it would have prevented or at least reduced swamp formation if enacted at the beginning
The career congressmen are just the tip of the surface of the swamp. The real swamp is composed of government employees and contractors that are fairly isolated from the changes in D.C. The alphabet agencies and the Pentagon are the real reasons the swamp exists.
Well You add Term Limits + Jungle Primary and you get CA.
Term Limits are not that bad, they work. The Problem is often in CA the illegals are allowed to vote and its counted against those who live in the state. Why you ask because the Liberals believe even if you live in the state you get the 'right' to vote, even if you are not a legal citizen of the country. So pretty much breathing air in CA equates to a vote in elections.
The sad part is the 'so called' liberty groups have never sued the state to enforce Prop 8, and Prop 187 as well challenge the EO that allows the state to unionize. They say things to obtain money...but never go through on anything unless its a pet project they know they will win...so it keeps the racket going.
Nothing wrong with that if that is what the people really want.
plus refining the commerce clause
It’s contributed more to big govt than any corrupt politician - even more so than King FDR
I have no idea about any of this. Was this done at SCOTUS, or where? As I see it, that was a power grab from the beginning.
Haha. My girlfriend saw a picture of her the other day on TV and said she was pretty. I was like WTF. That horse faced skank isn't pretty in any sense. Mind you my girlfriend is Filipina so beauty can be very different between she and I. I mean she thinks I'm hot lol. But objectively there is nothing attractive about that cow which is why she got knocked up by a black man who hated whites and didn't bother to stick around.
Was it one of those old portrait photos? Women back then always looked "pretty" in photos because the photos were all re-touched. Even men's portraits had the impossibly smooth skin, flushed cheeks, bright eyes, etc. It was just trickery, like filters today, but back then it was pros doing it so it wasn't as overt as what we see people do to selfies today.
Why start there? I'd abort her commie parents. Hell I'd abort the parents of Lenin, Marx, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh, Hillary, Bernie, AOC, I could go on and on.
And Soros’ parents!!!
Go back to caveman time and kill their ancestors just to be sure. And tripple kill Muhammed for obvious reasons.
"Think of it like the monarchy. Except instead of believing in the right-to-rule by God, it's the belief to impose misery on all by force."
"Ackshually, everyone voluntarily participates in nirvana after you give me all your things"
"Once we purge the undesirables of course."
That's stage II.
Dont freaking do slavery! It will cause 2 civial wars. The latter will be caused by a bunch of gay men in dresses trying and take over our country because they virtu signal for 200 year old black slaves. Dont ask, the future is weird. Just dont do it. Lol
Dude no kidding. Slavery was bad for black people but also bad for this country both in the past and in the future. Two races of people suffered heavily for that practice although to be fair it was already part of black culture so at the end of the day the US got the worst of it.
Aside from the moral implications of slavery, it wasn't beneficial economically for more than a very few people. It should have never been allowed and when it was abolished they should have been paid and sent back. The long-term effects have been disastrous.
That is so true, all of it. A few people got rich and benefited and today BLM is telling us they built this country. Yeah not even close. Not even capable.
Yah I never really got the slavery part. They do a war to make a freedom country, only to keep having slaves? Must've been politics, rich slave owners woulda supported the Brits if not I guess. I read that Washington banned Americans from going to get their own slaves, so all slaves brought in was from Africans selling Africans etc
Thomas Jefferson, who the Democrats love to revile as a devil these days, actually wanted to abolish slavery. If I remember correctly, he tried to write it into the first draft of the constitution but had to take it out to keep the southern states in. He also advocated a gradual abolishing of slavery, starting with outlawing the transport of new slaves from Africa into the states. He was worried about a wholesale, sudden freeing of slaves because of the rebellion in Haiti (they killed every white person, and many mixed). I don't know why he didn't free his own slaves, or even free them in his will as George Washington did, but he wasn't an evil person. Also, the famous "he had children with his slave" thing is not actually a fact, but a possibility. It was either him or his half-brother, who apparently enjoyed spending time in the slave cabins, which Thomas did not do.
Didnt Thomas have a romantic relationship with one of his slaves? Even sent her to France to get educated or smth?
That would be hilarious if it wasn't so true
Pelosi calls that investing.
And federal voter ID.