General discussion


Why all incumbents must go

By RknRlKid ·
I've been following the Foley scandal, and this was just announced on

"House Speaker Dennis Hastert said Thursday he was "sorry" about the scandal surrounding ex-Florida congressman Mark Foley's contacts with teenage pages but said he would not resign over the matter. "I'm going to run and presumably win in his election," he said. He did not, though, name former FBI director Louis Freeh to head an independent investigation of the page system, as expected, due to objections from Democrats."

Ok, let me try to understand this. Hastert wants to do something to fix the problem (an FBI investigation), but Democrats don't want him to?

This is why all incumbents must go, and we must get new blood up there. This is starting to appear to be another instance of finger-pointing by one party at the other, but they are probably doing the exact same thing. (Why else would the Demos NOT want an investigation? What do they have to hide?)

BOTH the Democratic Party and the Republican party are corrupt. Both need to go. They only care about winning and protecting their own turfs. It really is time for a change.

::deep breath:: Ok, I'm done venting now :)

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

One alternative

by NickNielsen In reply to Why all incumbents must g ...
Collapse -


by yobtaf In reply to One alternative

It actually makes sense, but the Republicans and Democrats
will never allow it to happen.

In most of the civilized world there are multiple political
parties that fit a person's political philosophy more closely.
But that will never happen here.

Collapse -

One current problem ...

by stress junkie In reply to Why all incumbents must g ...

... is that politicians rely on private funding of political campaigns. If the government funded political campaigns and private funding was outlawed then politicians wouldn't have to look to private interests like corporations for support. If politicians didn't have to raise the money for their policital campaigns then they would not be put in a position where they have to become endebted to special corporate interests just to run a campaign.

Another problem is implied in NickNeilsen's post. Most people think that we have a two party system. ****, when I was in elementary school I was taught that we have a two party system. It's a lie. Unfortunately government creates a structure that appears to operate a two party system. When we register to vote we can choose to either claim allegiance to the Republicans or to the Democrats or to claim no allegiance at all. When the political primaries are run it only includes the Democratic and the Republican parties. It would be cathartic if a third party took a significant percentage of the seats in Congress. Power struggles would be less clear cut. All political parties would have to deal with the other parties in order to get anything done. Three or more parties in Congress would put an end to the tyranny of one political party.

Most Americans are too stupid to change their political habits and allegiances. They are loyal to the party of their fathers and their grand fathers for no particularly good reason. They aren't interested enough to learn the real political issues or to bring the issues that they care about into the political discussion. Instead they sit catatonic in front of the television while the tv news departments decide what the issues for this election will be. Then if they bother to vote at all they vote for the candidate that they think will win or the candidate of their father's political party. Most Americans are a bunch of freakin' idiots.

Collapse -

That's a little excessive, isn't it?

by NickNielsen In reply to One current problem ...

Freakin' idiots? I wouldn't go that far. This line said it best: They aren't interested enough to learn the real political issues or to bring the issues that they care about into the political discussion.

Lazy idiots, maybe, but not freakin' idiots.

Collapse -

I said it. I meant it.

by stress junkie In reply to That's a little excessive ...
Collapse -

Extreme, But

by yobtaf In reply to That's a little excessive ...

He is being a bit extreme with his language but I can
understand how he feels. I tend to foam at the mouth when
get started on this too.

I agree with him, I would just suggest that he could win over
more support if he was less emotional.

Collapse -

That's a TERRIBLE idea

by maxwell edison In reply to One current problem ...

Government funding of elections? Outlawing private funding? What a terrible and oppressive idea!

Interest groups are a GOOD thing. What do you think gives an individual voice any hope of being heard? A single vote can, and does, mater, to be sure, but not as much as a collective voice. And to take private voice out of the funding would spell doom for our republic.

Interest groups are a way for collective individual voices to be heard as one -- and to make a difference. Special interest groups were the driving force behind the abolition of slavery, women's right to vote, the first minimum wage and child labor laws, and scores of other things.

You go and try to talk to your Senator, and you probably wouldn't be given the time of day -- even if you DID vote for that person. But speak to him/her through a special interest group, and they're all ears.

For the government to tell individuals or groups of individuals that they can't exercise their freedom of speech by contributing to a political party, person, or campaign, is the epitome of an oppressive government.

You said, "If politicians didn't have to raise the money for their political campaigns then they would not be put in a position where they have to become indebted to special ______________ interests just to run a campaign." (I took out "corporate" because that is just one of many "interests".) Therefore, if they weren't indebted to "our" interests, they wouldn't be obliged to serve "our" interests. What a scary thought! And if they finance their own campaigns, with OUR money that they take from us in the form of taxes, and we can't do a thing about it, ......

Give your head a shake and think that one through again.

Collapse -

Don't limit the money

by NickNielsen In reply to That's a TERRIBLE idea

Limit the campaign. Give the candidates and their advocates 90 days to make their point. After all, most parliamentary democracies manage to vote reasonably intelligently with only 45-60 days of campaigning.

IMO, this is one of the reasons that many people tune out the political process; the campaigns have become so long, they are just so much more noise. It often seems that new campaigns start even before the polls are closed on election day. I don't think there is anything more stupid than some politically **** talking head telling me that what just happened really happened, then speculating on the effect on the next election.

That and driving to Grandma's at Thanksgiving and seeing campaign posters still up at the roadside...

Collapse -

Yes I agree with that.

by stress junkie In reply to That's a TERRIBLE idea

What I'm saying is that special interest groups should not have the structure to purchase consideration. Speaking through a collective voice is certainly one of the pillars of our populist government. The way things are today a collective voice isn't heard unless there are collective dollars to purchase attention from politicians. This is the opposite of government for the people.

I'm saying that if politicians didn't have to fund their elections then they wouldn't have to seek money from rich sponsors to whom they are then expected to pay special consideration. The government agenda should not be dictated by the people with the most dollars. Then special interests can organise and seek attention based on the number of people in the group or based on the moral imperative of a given issue. The current system negates those two dynamics.

Funding of political campaigns would be even for each candidate. There would have to be a qualification for this, just as there is currently a qualification to get on a ballot. It could be the same qualification; the number of people who sign a petition to put you on the ballot.

I think that publicly funded political campaigns would result in politicians having fewer conflicts of interest and the ability to pay more attention to the people. Then we could outlaw money changing hands in lobbying activities. That would also benefit the interest groups that don't have fat treasuries to pay for political attention.

No, I still think that if we can eliminate money from elections and lobbying then the political process would be fairer.

Collapse -

"if we can eliminate money from elections and lobbying"

by Absolutely In reply to Yes I agree with that.

I think that eliminating the monetary incentives of representatives to obey special interest groups before the interests of their contituencies is so important as to make election finance issues all but irrelevant. Suppose that a candidate will be banned from accepting any money, from any entity save the government jurisdiction to which he seeks election, from the moment he declares intent to pursue office. Then, the election finance issues will take care of themselves, because all incentive to corruption will have already been removed: there will be no possiblity of politicians for purchase, regardless of the outcome of the elections!

Related Discussions

Related Forums