How to chauffeur a congressman

[Tom]

Immigration reform is not something that politicians seem inclined to give much more than lip service to; liberals or conservatives.

Good point.
does congress ever have any interest in anything good?
Either party?
When did either party pass a bill that helped anyone, ensured more freedom, improved the nation?

Sorry, score, to me is 0-0 for many years.

Congress is expendable.
It is a liability.

[TBD]

Question for you Mostposts. How many states with conservative governors and conservative legislatures will it take to rewrite? Check the numbers that have already been gained. Conservative are taking states. Keep thinking sanctuary cities are a good idea. Keep the liberal thinking that states like Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North and South Dakota, Utah, Montana, and Wyoming are unimportant. Keep thinking that it is all about the popular vote. Keep thinking that it is a white and black thing. Keep thinking that it is about monuments. Keep thinking it is a good thing that judges are attempting to make laws rather than our legislatures. Barahona44, read the constitution, Article V does not need fifty states. However, keep thinking that way. Yes DSB. I also believe the only way back to reality is Article V.

[DSB]

Right. 2/3 of the states must request the convention. 3/4 of the states must ratify any amendments.

A tough row to hoe, but it's the only chance the people have to reign in the runaway train that the federal government has become.

Most people (not those who benefit from govt largess, obviously) want a balanced budget amendment. that's one I forgot to list. The ruling elite will never go for that. It will need to be imposed on them, and the only way is through article V.

The central problem I see is that the people can put pressure on their respective state governments to call the convention, but ultimately the delegates are certain to be politicians, albeit from the state level. Once politicians are involved, no telling what may come out of the convention.

I may be the only guy who thinks there should be no political parties. People vote for candidates to represent their interests, only to find they fall in line (conspire?) with their party whether it benefits their constituents or not. I've always felt that a combination of term limits and freedom from the objectives of political parties would serve the people best. Hopefully that would promote representatives to actually represent the people who elected them. If not, at least they wouldn't be allowed to hang around congress for 40 or 50 years. One, maybe two terms, and you're out.

[Tom]

I may be the only guy who thinks there should be no political parties

You are not alone.
Parties do no good for the country.

Right now, we only have one party, one that represents status quo and not the people or the nation.

The average net worth of each member of congress is 9 million.
Dem lead repubs.

Do you really thing they give a s*** what we want or need?

Osama was a rank amature compared this TIHS terroist oraniztion.

[DSB]

In my estimation, the founding fathers made a couple of glaring errors when they drafted the constitution.

1. They should have imposed term limits for all federal positions, including the supreme court.

2. They should have banned political parties for reasons I have stated.

Since then, the 14th amendment should be redefined to require at least one parent of a child born on U.S. soil to be a citizen in order for that child to acquire citizenship. What was originally intended to guarantee the citizenship rights of children born of former slaves was poorly drafted, opening the door for the abuses we see today.

Throw in a balanced budget amendment and perhaps an amendment that requires that lawmakers can't be exempted from the laws they inflict on the citizenry, and I'm good.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Tom

You are not alone.
Parties do no good for the country.

Nebraska has a unicameral legislature, a Senate and no House. It is "non-partisan"; candidates on the ballot run with no party affiliation. The reality is that there are usually two candidates for each position, one is a Democrat in real life and the other is a Republican, and everyone (wink, wink) knows which is which.

Political parties are a fact of life, and they will never go away. They reflect human nature. Most people find it very difficult to function without some kind of group identity.

The only strange thing about this country is that the voters always regress to a two-party system. A viable third party rarely gains strength, and when it has in the past, it is because one of the existing two is in a death spiral and eventually disappears.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Clocker

...
The only strange thing about this country is that the voters always regress to a two-party system. A viable third party rarely gains strength, and when it has in the past, it is because one of the existing two is in a death spiral and eventually disappears.

It is particularly difficult when the two entrenched businesses and their stooges pass rules and legislation to make sure that no one else gets a piece of the action.

[Tom]

This is why we need single term limits - no one can get entrenched. NO parties is what is needed.

What does it say about a nation that repeatedly elects a KKK leader to the senate? Or a racist like Rev Al?

One and done.
Two we're screwed.

[dkithore]

Originally Posted by DSB

Right. 2/3 of the states must request the convention. 3/4 of the states must ratify any amendments.

A tough row to hoe, but it's the only chance the people have to reign in the runaway train that the federal government has become.

Most people (not those who benefit from govt largess, obviously) want a balanced budget amendment. that's one I forgot to list. The ruling elite will never go for that. It will need to be imposed on them, and the only way is through article V.

The central problem I see is that the people can put pressure on their respective state governments to call the convention, but ultimately the delegates are certain to be politicians, albeit from the state level. Once politicians are involved, no telling what may come out of the convention.

I may be the only guy who thinks there should be no political parties. People vote for candidates to represent their interests, only to find they fall in line (conspire?) with their party whether it benefits their constituents or not. I've always felt that a combination of term limits and freedom from the objectives of political parties would serve the people best. Hopefully that would promote representatives to actually represent the people who elected them. If not, at least they wouldn't be allowed to hang around congress for 40 or 50 years. One, maybe two terms, and you're out.