I would want to know the history of this police officer. Not all attacks are directed against police per se. Many attacks are directed against abusive officers or responses to abusive officers. They just pick the wrong person to try to victimize. Not all police are saints or even decent human beings.
4 Likes
I’ll reserve my thoughts on this as there’s some prime SJW agendas going on here along with voter fraud by well funded democrats.
4 Likes
I have heard the call (not from you Mike, just in response to your post above. 
) for “we need term limits”. We have term limits, every time people go to the polls they have the opportunity to limit someones term.
Only 1 branch of our democratic republic does not, the Supreme Court.
6 Likes
You are absolutely right. It is up to voters to limit the terms of the legislature!
5 Likes
Playing devil’s advocate here - politicians are supposed common people representing their constituents’ best interests. Lifetime politicians are out of touch with the struggles of real people. As members of congress that have a guaranteed salary, excellent health care and a lot of lobbyist friends, how can people so out of touch with the everyday Joe truly represent the everyday Joe?
Who’s to say that there isn’t someone better for KY than Mitch McConnell? The political machine is self-protecting…
Remember, that’s me playing devil’s advocate.
7 Likes
@Dawn - you are absolutely right, but I think of this in terms of the First Amendment. A1 guarantees everyone the right to voice their opinion, no matter how odious, without reprisal from the government.
“No term limits” then leads us to the following conclusion - if the incumbent is that odious to me, the burden falls to me to remove that individual from office by running against him/her, or enlisting and supporting a candidate to run against him/her. These options are valid if that incumbent represents the area of which I am a legal resident citizen. If I am not represented by that incumbent, it ain’t any of my business.
3 Likes
I agree with what you are saying, to a point @Dawn. But we, as voters, have the power to elect a candidate or not.
And I’ll throw out another horror story that term limits will create. Just imagine, if senators were limited to 2 terms and house representatives to 3 terms. The most senior senators after an election will have 6 years in Washington and the most senior representative will have had 4 years. Who would actually be running the government? The only ones with any real experience in government would be the staff members that have been there for years. The machine would still likely run just the way it is with he names on the wall changing but not really the policy makers.
Politics would need to become a lot simpler for it to work, which I am all for, but it would be devastating to the machine as it exists today. There would be little to no stability.
5 Likes
IMO: I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. The machine that exists today is like an old rusted old Studebaker that’s costing the taxpayers millions each year - it’s slow, rotting, and not very useful without a complete overhaul.
The lack of stability is a concern, but even if people could serve only 10 years total it would remove lifetime politicians who are out of touch with those they serve and don’t want to rock the boat for their job security’s sake.
Personal opinions here… not an official company opinion.
5 Likes
Yes, and…
It’s human nature to go with what you know if there’s no great pain in your backside making you move out of your comfortable spot. It takes a LOT of pain to get people to vote someone out, and if they’re even just moderately malignant or incompetent, people won’t do it.
The bigger problem I see is this: Long-sitting elected can build favors-owed into a network of favors that allows them to control the actions of other less-well favored-up elected individuals and hobble their ability to instigate any change.
I don’t think term limits are intended to supersede our voting right-to-eject-the-incumbent but to disrupt the incumbent’s stranglehold on newer, less well connected players.
Think of it like this… the longer something sits in your fridge, the more everything else starts to smell and taste like it.
Eventually the incumbents have sufficient power to have their way, regardless of what anyone else thinks or wants, because they hold the other end of so many favors and they know the location of all the skeletons. THAT is what has to be disrupted for the system to function, and term limits are a good way to clean the fridge.
ETA: I lived in CA for a long time and the same small inbred pool of individuals just swam back and forth between the two houses, the governer’s or mayor’s offices, regulatory agencies, and lobbiest jobs. Not a wit of change, same players, just changing up the labels on their doors. It is a big part of WHY California is in the trouble its in… because the same people have been in control for two generations, and the fact that they changed from one seat to another is irrelevant. JMO.
4 Likes
At times it really seems the direction California is moving towards appears to be completed orchestrated. I keep reading how all of the public policies are part of a larger plan to overrun California with illegal immigrants, homeless, and Socialist policies (increased entitlements, free healthcare and housing for all, anti-property owner, anti-business, etc). Will these changes shift the voter populations, city and state policies enacted, the criminal justice system, the Courts, and ultimately, the electoral college? Thoughts?
4 Likes
I agree with you that it is orchestrated. Fast forward to Virginia and the word for word bills showing up in other states it is apparent. We have a fight coming if we want to maintain freedom.
6 Likes
The issue would also be that this staff is still the real power filling the legislation. That is why we have Congress reviewing implementing rules theoretically. Look at the Barney Frank Banking bill. They are still writing the implementing rules.
Unfortunately, those old farts are still there and no way to get them out. We need the blood to change. This includes judges, legislators, and other officials. If you are appointed or elected, the most time anyone should spend in these kinds of positions is a max of 12 years using 2 terms as senators setting the bar. Maybe less.
4 Likes
I hear all the arguments for term limits, but, I stand by the fact that an informed electorate is the most powerful tool for making sure those in office are there representing their constituents. I believe our problem exists because our citizens are generally not informed by choice. We should not change the Constitution because people choose to remain uninformed. After all, you can’t fix stupid!
8 Likes
@MikeBKY What would be we more entertaining than term limits are total campaign spending limitations. Regulate who can contribute. Also, legislate that politicians can not be exempt from the same laws they pass. If they don’t pass a budget, they don’t get paid. They should be capped on the numerous perks they receive including government furnished flights.
4 Likes
You’ve pursueded me, @MikeBKY!
No doubt! But after believing the good it would cause I’m able to see why they have their opinion as I know you do too.
When you say changing the Constitution, I automatically pause! Matter of fact my opinion of the “Constitutional Convention” changed as soon as Mike Johnson’s email was read concerning the whole constitution being re-written && he especially pointed out the second.
3 Likes
Wow! Baby steps maybe! I agree with donation limits but not necessarily spending limits. And regulating who is a good idea and somehow regulate the superPACs. I’m not sure about the budget but if there is a shutdown, they should be treated as non-essential so they do not get paid for the shutdown and shouldn’t get paid after either. Definitely on the pass a law it applies to them too. And I think they should be limited in how much they can make from non-government pay while they are in their positions.
3 Likes
Is there anything in the Constitution that requires political parties? If I remember correctly, many of the founding fathers eschewed partly alignments. How about a heavy tax on any political party?
3 Likes
And one last thing - a complete, up front dossier, questioner and last three W-2s on each candidate running in any election? Now I will go back to my corner and chew my crayons.
3 Likes
What do you mean by that?
I think your money is protected under privacy. However, if that is what you meant…its a 1040 (for most) but my opinion on that issue.
2 Likes
No, there is no party system in the Constitution. The original parties were the Federalists (those supporting a strong federal government) and the Democratic-Republicans party (Those opposed to a strong federal government. The current Republican and Democratic parties came about out of the civil war with the Republicans representing the freedmen and the Democratic party representing the “redeemers” in primarily white south.
3 Likes