If you could cancel a part of the constitution what article/amendment would it be?

That is why you voted for Biden or at least voted for Democrats most of your life.
First you create a strawman series of issues not told by Policy or as you call him Cy, and try to use your word salad as were it his.
It is clear that the captains of industry are your leeches. But they are the more productive of all citizens.

 

I do not (NOT) propose that anyone who supports him or herself should lose the right to vote. A person may work one, two, three, or more jobs, Te -- that's not the prime criterion for being "self-supporting".

No one hates the U. S. Tax Code in its current form more than me! If I had the power, I would go through it like an 'avenging angel', throwing out ALL the loopholes, tax shelters, exclusions, exemptions, deductions, 'carried-interest' and all the other grossly-fair bullshit -- and then -- for good measure -- I'd dismantle and throw out the entire Federal Reserve System, too! But, obviously, I don't have any such power. And ALL the wonderful Democrat AND Republicans who litter the Capitol Building haven't really changed anything after all these decades -- and they won't, Te. When you mash the bullshit out of it, they all like the U. S. Tax Code exactly as it is!

So, we have to start at 'bedrock'.... Who should have the right to vote in this country? The most basic, elementary criterion should be -- PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THEMSELVES WITHOUT DEPENDENCY ON THE GOVERNMENT!

I've already given you a list of those who do collect government welfare and benefits who, because of their legitimate, individual circumstances, should be allowed to have those benefits, AND vote also! But when we encourage and empower a large and growing class of slackers and parasites to be able to control the direction of the entire country, we are committing SUICIDE!

. "Bring me your 'tax code'...."

 

Seth is a very reasonable person.
Seth, rather than term limits, perhaps the house can first get a degree in administration of government along with finance so they understand what they are doing.
Education can do a lot.
Doctors and lawyers must hold degrees.

The House has problems, but not with how long you may serve. Do not let the corrupt in at all and make them get degrees first.
The idea of yours on the 2nd amendment should pass with flying colors.
How to fund the campaigns has been addressed by me in my past. I see you have some good ideas.

 

Given that YOU are PERSISTING with that extremist rightwing DISINFORMATION canard there is no point in wasting any further time as far as I am concerned, Cy.

Get back to me when you have figured out the STARK difference between REALITY and that extremist rightwing DISINFORMATION.

Have a nice day!

 

Go back and read all the negative crap spewed against Trump if you want comedy.
The democrats acted as if Hitler was our president.
Biden is far more authoritarian so he can compare to Hitler.

 

Robert, I believe that staying in Congress endlessly lends itself to corruption. I want legislators who stay there for a short time, trying to make a difference and getting things done, rather than spending all their time raising campaign money and being corrupted by big money interests.

 

I know that.
My past experience on various committees, also as chairing committees, being on a large but local board of directors, then a gigantic board of directors over the state of California, leads me to believe that GIGO is the problem and not who naively spews the Garbage in.

My past rather vast experience in the Real Estate community gives me a good base, but does not apply to all fields.
Such as law enforcement.
I can be the most willing subject to working on a police commission yet do not have the background to function well.
Sure expelling me sooner is good. But better is well grounded experts on the various committees.
Congress does try to match the man to the committee due to experiences. But committees work very slowly.
The top experts on committees make them function better and with more speed.
Trying to keep educating them consumes too much time.
Point is not to assume removing them is helpful, but not allowing the worst to be there at all. And since the blind public picks congressmen, we lose t he good ones to try to get rid of the bad ones too.
That last sentence is the most vital.

We lose the good ones trying to get rid of the bad members of congress.
Term limits is not the actual problem solution.
Screening is far better.

Give me 100 good cops and I do not need to get rid of any of them. Give me 10 bad people and try to remove them means the good cops are also removed. ( if term limits worked)

 

Few stay in endlessly. I understand what you are driving at. I gave a longer reply that ends up saying that we need the best and should shun the worst trying to be elected.

I gave the example of a police commission.
You and my son in law, having worked for years in law enforcement would do far better than me on committees of that topic.
I have ideas of course. But you have experiences.

When I was a director of the pretty non political Real Estate board locally, myself and several others of we directors analyzed our own board of directors.
On over 90 percent of things, they were all doing fairly well. But about 40 percent of us actually cared about the rest of all of the members and 60 percent stumbled by being for the board hired manager and his quislings.

The iceberg is exposed by about 10 percent. 90 percent is hidden.
Same with government.
Congress talks all the time to the hired people. Those not elected. Those do influence the congress perhaps more than the voters do.

 

No it doesn’t. The EC actually spreads power out rather than concentrating power in the few most populous states.

True or not, that’s not relevant in 21st Century America.

You mean they use a pure “one man, one vote” system.

Canada doesn’t. Australia doesn’t. Countries using a parliamentary system don’t elect their chief executive by a direct vote of the people. France does elect its president through a direct vote of the people.

We are a geographically large country, the third most populous behind China and India. From coast to coast to Alaska and Hawaii, we represent different interests. What the EC system does for us is that it gives weight to smaller, less populous states, making them matter. I see that as a unifying factor rather than the opposite.

 

Robert, I think by denying people a long term career in Congress, the people who run for Congress are far more likely to be the good ones you spoke of - people in it to serve their country like our Founders were. I see term limits as sort of like a filter, filtering out the bad ones right from the get-go.

 

I would amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget.

 

Off the top of my head would be the first Amendment; I honestly don't feel that a lot of individuals on the far-left should have a right to spread their propaganda and bile under the guise of "freeze peach". Same with some potentially pornographic or obscene content falling under the protection of the 1st Amendment.

If I could do anything, I'd probably only allow free speech for individuals of certain moral, intellectual, and political persuasions. Definitely not for a lot of far-left extremists (e.x. such as individuals who advocate unrestricted transgender therapy and surgery for underage children, or claim that a biological male has a right to use the locker room with little girls just because he "claims" to be transgender with no legal or medical evidence whatsoever).

 

Thank you for CONFIRMING that the EC is BIASED and UNDEMOCRATIC.

How did that work out for the Apartheid regime when their equivalent of the EC gave MORE WEIGHT to WHITE voters when they were a MINORITY?

Demographic changes are happening and the EC will be likened to Apartheid because it is essentially doing the same thing.

 

It was estimated that by the time Obama's second term was completed that ~51% of Americans were receiving one form or another of "assistance" from the government... either SNAP or TANF or Medicaid or low-income housing or LIHEAP or "subsidies" of different kinds, or just plain, old hand-out welfare cash payments. Today, it's even more grim, and getting worse: https://www.lexingtonlaw.com/blog/w...welfare-spending-estimate-america-768x681.png

There's no use in arguing with you about this, and in a way, it doesn't even matter anymore. We've already gone 'over the edge', Te, and there's no going back to fiscal sanity now. Socialist Democrats are permanently in power, and they use their leverage of providing unearned income to a growing percentage of the population that does not pay its own way in life to keep that power. The United States is now on a downward glide-path of decay and ruin -- precisely because those who do little or nothing but TAKE still have the power to vote. The only way the current 'race-to-the-bottom' can be avoided would be change the Constitution to disallow those who take unearned government welfare from voting in the same calendar year that they get their handouts.

That won't happen...so, now you and I are probably best advised to simply sit back and endure our national slide into total government dependency as comfortably as we can. But understand this -- within ten years, the Chinese-Russian economic and military alliance will push us far back into a dark corner of irrelevance where America has less and less control of anything of importance in the entire world.

Do just ONE thing for me (and for yourself, Te)... please re-read Orwell's masterpiece, "1984". THAT is where we're going, and now, thanks to Frankie Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama, and now, Joe Biden and the whole damned 'woke' Democrat Party, nothing can stop it. Or, if nothing else, will you at least please read this explanation of "The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oligarchical_Collectivism

 

I say “none” because if we have a Constitutional convention we will lose rights, not gain them.
Today, we have deleted our southern border. What do you think our new citizens think they want to do with their new country? I’m sure the “round eyes” asked the Indians for their opinion. Har de har har har!
That would be the worlds biggest sucker bet!

How about targeted abortion by popular demand?

You never think you are the one who is going to get bleeped.

 

The EC system is not a pure democratic system in the sense that our cumulative national individual votes do not determine who wins, but it USES a pure democratic vote.

If by “biased” you mean that the system gives weight to more rural states, then yes, it does. And as I already said, I see that as a positive aspect of the system, not a negative.

Sorry, but comparing 21st Century America to the apartheid state of South Africa is a false equivalence.

 

You may be the smartest man on the forum so far

 

Nope!

Not comparing the nations!

Comparing the BIASED VOTING methods used by BOTH nations in order to maintain an UNDEMOCRATIC control over POWER!

Apartheid FUNCTIONED by giving an UNFAIR and UNWARRANTED advantage to one group of voters over another.

The EC gives an UNFAIR and UNWARRANTED advantage to one group of voters over another which makes it the SAME as Apartheid.

 

Completely wrong.

American government is not a democracy, it’s a federated republic. America is a union of states, and the states choose the President.

 

Democrats want a full blown democracy. They want a national popular vote. Democracies are horrid and often do the worst things a society can imagine.

 

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner.”

 

You’re wrong because you’re ascribing equivalence to the underlying motive.

In the case of SA, the underlying motive was to preserve apartheid, a system that we can all agree was racist and completely unfair.

In the case of the EC system in the US, the underlying motive is to GIVE power to someone, namely lesser populated states. The EC system gives some modicum of influence to minority states that they wouldn’t have otherwise.

Again, I think you would think differently if the political situation was reversed. And I wish to point out that I am speaking from the perspective of a moderately conservative fellow living in a deep, dark blue state. I am fully aware that because of the EC system, my vote doesn’t count. But I can put that aside because I see the principle, or in other words, the bigger picture than only how it effects me personally.

 

Who said that?

 

The End of South Africa | National Review

 

It's attributed to Ben Franklin. But, I always question internet quotes.