You ask yourself, how can people even consider voting Republican with all the crackpots and lunatics. Then you get a weekly reminder of just how old and awful Dem leadership is.
Dem party is the most dysfunctional org in history
- Thread starter Toots_mcgee
- Start date
People she has worked with for years have to introduce themselves at meetings and Pelosi and her other geriatric Dems are defending Feinstein instead of replacing her with someone competent
It's not a crackpot move...it's pure political genius on the Democratic party's part. It's why the Democrats are better at playing the dirty bag of tricks games than the Republicans.
The Dem's know that she is easily going to get votes, familiar face and name. She is a known candidate as opposed to the unknown which is never a great thing at the polls.
What you seem to not understand or ignore is that this is just Politics and about retaining control and power. You really believe that the Dem's are working to help the people. Neither Political party is interested in doing what is competent....
The Dem's know that she is easily going to get votes, familiar face and name. She is a known candidate as opposed to the unknown which is never a great thing at the polls.
What you seem to not understand or ignore is that this is just Politics and about retaining control and power. You really believe that the Dem's are working to help the people. Neither Political party is interested in doing what is competent....
“What you seem to not understand”
“You really believe”
You are a condescending little man.
It works both ways. Repubs have the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, and 8th oldest members of Congress. The whole damn shooting match is being run by a bunch of career politician old farts that are 20 years past their prime, including Biden and Trump, although Trump isn't a career politician, he is a career public figure and !brand name!
Not being anti old people, but I don't know many people over 70 and 80 yrs old that are as sharp mentally as they once were. I'm 64 and and can tell I forget more.
Anyone that doesn't think Trump was slipping in office has the blinders on, too. His speaking ability in no where close to what it was 20 yrs ago. He speaks in incomplete sentence, can't complete his thoughts, changes subject in the middle of his conversation, not to mention just the incredible stupid things he says sometime like disinfectant for covid, nuke a hurricane, buy Greenland.
Last edited:
That's not condescending from your post you really seem to put forth your belief there is a huge difference between the two parties.
80% of Americans favor term limits for Congress, yet we never hear one single politician advocate for passing term limits legislation. Hmmm....I wonder why that is?????????
I agree.....term limits should be invoked. And all the lifetime benefits should go away. Pension, health Insurance etc. I know some will say this will open politicians up for even more corruption and behind closed door payoffs but really I doubt that. And Maybe after being elected and serving Politicians if they really are doing the job for the Benefit of their electors and country should be fine with their Finances and Such being subject to scrutiny for corporations, organizations and special interest groups
Agree 100%, and I don't imagine a retired congressman would have a hard time finding a job.
On the other hand, I also realize it takes time and experience for junior congressman to learn the ropes serving for various committees, writing legislation, and such, and move up the food chain to leadership roles. As with any job, the more experience makes anyone better at their job. Even with term limits, I think we do need to allow for some longevity for representatives and senators.
On the other hand, I also realize it takes time and experience for junior congressman to learn the ropes serving for various committees, writing legislation, and such, and move up the food chain to leadership roles. As with any job, the more experience makes anyone better at their job. Even with term limits, I think we do need to allow for some longevity for representatives and senators.
Then we could become 'consultants' like politicians do after they 'retire'.
They get rich that way.
If that is what the investors and stockholders deem as correct and prudent for the company to thrive and grow than they are free at any time to enact that policy. Or not they are private entities that the govt really should not have any say in. You are free to not purchase or do dealings with companies that don't engage in this policy thus exercising your free will as a consumer.
The Govt isn't a business and comparing the two is like comparing Apples to Pizza. The entrenched power of the Politicians and Bureaucrats that have led to a almost autocratic system of a few who wield power is the issue..the choice for voters is very limited and often never changes people end up voting for the lesser of two evils or in reality a person picks a party that best aligns with their core values and votes straight party.
At least with some form of limits some new blood could move in and if they where AOC nuts then they would move out rather quickly.
I understand your point that limits would also weed out the good with the bad at times. But the trade off and the idea that you are not getting a life time appointment that leads to a way to sale your votes to a whole host of Lobbyist and special interest groups for future gain is worth it in my opinion. Being a short timer in your spot and a new person in your former elected position quickly would make your sway lesser as those politicians wouldn't have years to entrench themselves or form a good ole boy network.
Big difference in the amount of $$ thrown around between state and federal elections and politicians.
What really needs to be changed is every damn thing about fund raising in our government at every level. Dems and repubs accumulate millions and then pay their relatives for consulting, transportation, managing events, etc etc etc. It is out of control. Both sides said they were against citizens United. They all lied.
You like the idea for a corporation to replace all employees every 8 years or so? I mean if I was running a company and I didn't ever have to give out retirement benefits and just replaced employee's at that rate it could be very very beneficial to the company's bottom line. It would also make it easy to weed out any employee who you didn't care for.
Do you have a base line comparison to compare to with a state that mimics Missouri in size demographics etc?
We entered 2022 with a 3 billion surplus..We took in 11.2 billion in revenue receipts. The current budget is calling for putting 281 million in a cash reserve fund, sending 955 million to healthcare providers,722 million for childcare, 500 million in state employee retirement, putting forth 100 million for debt retirement saving taxpayers 148 million. Plus 468 million for improvements at the college level.
Just curious why you think term limits have not been impressive?
That will never change it the perks of running for office...and really they raised the money. Are they going to refund it to people if they don't spend it all? It's no different than having a family business and hiring relatives etc. And in this day and age Politics appears to be a family business.
To me lobbyist and Special interest money is the issue.....they have the man power to effect legislative change that really only benefits those interest they want, as opposed to the general electorate and our interests. If politicians actually represented the general population and ignored Lobbyist and Special interest groups when they come with $$$ that ran counter to the general good, I'd be fine with Politicians keeping their campaign donations or hiring relatives if they voted in the best interest of the people who elected them.
Sounds like the perfect thing for a capitalist society. I"m just here to help.
This has nothing to do with our state senate and congress. The surplus came from federal covid relief.
What our short-term legislators are good at is attacking schools, ignoring state-wide votes to increase Medicaid coverage (until the Missouri Supreme Court unanimously voted 12-0 to force them to), passing ridiculous abortion laws that get shot down every time, and totally complicating the medical Marijuana law that passed with 67% of the vote. One thing they are good at is keeping other lawyers busy at an average of 850$/hr. cost to the taxpayers.
Yep, it infuriates me no end that MO Rep Legislature is trying to do an end run to overturn the Medicaid law already passed by MO voters, the same thing they tried with the Right to Work vote. Geez, the Reps want to destroy our free and fair elections, and live with the results!!
Well providing benefits is a capitalistic thing....adding in benefits and such allows a company to cherry pick better employees that are more productive and more stable from other companies. But if the wages where high enough then of course offering benefits might not be necessary in so the employee could go on the open market and get them some Obama care for health insurance and invest in their own Retirement.
So they are the same as other state's! A lot of moving parts and different ideas and opinions.
And really the Medicaid coverage doesn't increase spending it can't or it would of been ruled unconstitutional as the lower court had ruled before it was overturned by the state supreme court, you can't mandate or appropriate money in the state constitution.... so while more people are eligible to grift off the tax payer what will happen is it just splits the pie up more and allows people who didn't qualify to get coverage when they really shouldn't be thus taking away from those who maybe are deserving. If you think they are going to kick in more Money to Medicaid to cover the 300 thousand now eligible people you don't get how this work's....now service will just be Reduced.
I and many conservatives are 100% for this tactic we pay enough taxes. The stupid masses have no idea how these horrible social programs are wasteful and abused. They just buy the BS sob stories and lies all the shiftless and irresponsible spew,....and then the Classic response BUT THE CHILDREN. As I income maintenance I determined these people eligibility for all the govt freebies Medicaid/Medicare/FoodStamps/Hud Housing/Aid-For dependent Children ETC. and I saw it first hand how it was just a scam in most cases for the Lazy and immoral.
Believe me the Children are just fine and well indoctrinated into how to get all much of their basic expenses paid for by the taxpayer while the engage in nefarious other activities with all the Free time on their hands. Now these bums will be eligible as adults....creating a Ward of the state for life.
And while I'm for Abortion....I'd say the wind is now blowing in the Supreme court that things are going to change in that area. So those laws might not be shot down.
And seriously with something as controversial as MJ and with $$$ involved you knew the Red Tape was going to be a Mountain sized issue. That is how all those things work.
Last edited:
Is considering the needs of children in those situations necessarily bad? I get that often it's an appeal to emotion tactic, but is it not something that should be considered?
Facts data and logic not emotion should rule the day. You can't save everybody and to even aspire to do so is a Goal of Failure.
I work in a job now and have worked in other jobs that make it easy to determine this after being on the Front line working with thousands of the poor in America accessing they are lazy, irresponsible and often of low moral character isnot complicated or hard to figure out. I do understand the emotional draw of wanting to believe that the poor are put upon and have no responsibility in their own situations and it's the fault of the rich oppressive man. But that is not the reality.
Working for over 30 years in a profession and having contacts of other workers who have made the same analysis is not anecdotal evidence.....I didn't question any of the educational professionals on here when they suggested that much of the problems with the failure of students and the system was lack of parent involvement and claim that it was just anecdotal evidence. I gave credence to those who have actual involvement in that line of work.
Why is it bold. I'm morally against abortion after around the 12-14 week period... but it is the Law and it is pretty clear on that issue. Now if the Law changes then it will align with my principles to a degree although before the 12 week period and the fetus is more a mass of cells and doesn't look human I think it should be a women's choice no doubt. Either way being of the Male gender I really don't invest to much in the whole ordeal. And I tend to favor individual rights so hence I support it.
No not at all.....I'm fine with the law as is.....or if they change it that is fine as well. I was just stating my thoughts on it.
A lot of Females are pro-life. I think it's strange that the Left assumes it's a bunch of Males who are so pro-life.
Poll: Majority Want To Keep Abortion Legal, But They Also Want Restrictions
An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist survey found that three-quarters of Americans want the Supreme Court to uphold Roe v. Wade. But there is also complexity — and contradiction — in respondents' views.
www.npr.org
I'd fall in the group keep it legal but with some restrictions....but as I said I'm not gonna protest, donate, or get up in Arms what ever the decision or law is and being pro choice or life won't factor into who I vote for at all.
Similar threads
