Maybe, but won't that exacerbate the elder/seasoned politians from totally routing the new folk? They do that now, but I can imagine how well the power-brokers will manipulate representatives if none are in office long enough to learn the old/new tricks?

As opposed to those entrenched in office so long they are already in the power-broker pocket...?

Hmmmm....

Most issues that require public policy are very complicated and require hard choices to be made.

Term limits removes experienced experts with actual knowledge and wisdom from the process and replaces them with newbies.... Simply a bad idea. The lobby will have the experience and skills to run circles around you...

What you really want are politicians.. Yup... individuals who know how to negotiate and move the ball. Politicians who have the backbone to make hard choices within this negotiation on public policy issues are priceless.

It is a trivial thing for a politician to "make hard choices" and have NOBODY join him.... See Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz..... One old timer and one newbie... It is indisputable that these are two lightweight politicians are noted for making "hard choices" and getting NOTHING Accomplished.

Hard choices... are actually easy to make... when you don't have to get anything done ... After all... it is a democracy... autocrats are not the answer!

Yes, from themselves. It is the responsibility of the government to do the following (from here: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/03/23/against-all-enemies/)

Thus, there was an obvious need for government – legitimate, just government to carry out two main functions:

(1) protecting free people from foreign enemies and invaders;

(2) protecting honest, self-responsible, hard-working citizens within the nation from domestic lawbreakers who would use coercion, fraud, or force to deprive others of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If you harm yourself, by failing to wear a seatbelt (or properly straddle your horse, or what have you), that isn't the governments problem, nor should it be. Welcome to the nanny state... Can the government protect you from an avalanche if you cross into a known avalanche area? Can they protect you several hundred miles offshore, beyond reach of the most sophisticated miltary helicopters? Should they?? After all, was it their decision for you to be out there in the first place?

I fear America has become exactly what our founders set out NOT to create, and its the complacency of our citizens that has lead to this. Not that the people in power make it easy-and their are term limits in place which do just fine, but do you think Bill, or George, or any of the Presidents, Congressmen, Senators etc. really get out of politics just because they leave Washington? Its not like JuanK stopped designing boats because he had a couple of rather embarrassing and public failures, that's his career.

Surprisingly I agree with Mark on this, you need a skilled politician to navigate the system, but at the same time, its not term limits that are the problem. Its the money in politics. Big business, the NRA, U.S Chamber of Commerce etc. are the ones in control, NOT the citizens.

Tell that to Bernie and Donald Trump.... they have raised much/most of their money from citizens in small amounts.

Fact of life... that constitution that you choose to construe as doing just two things..... Makes it clear that citizens can petition their government... Petition = money = speech.

Big money in politics controls everything... sure... Tell it to Eric Cantor.... X member of the republican house leadership.

My view is that money comes from people and so cash over a certain amount comes with full disclosure and a SS number. Big money matches up to names... No more anonymous donors to pacs and super pacs..... Disclosure will allow the political process and a free press to vet private or public interest concerns. This system can work and has long been proposed by conservative pundit George Will.

I don't have a problem with the Koch brothers funding pro coal anti global warming efforts.. I get that this furthers their private interests... How it impacts my opinions is a function of their argument and the data they present.

Likewise, I don't have a problem with the big environmental donor funding the opposite point of view... He may have a financial interest in solar panel production.. again...knowledge about one's motives, interests and history is critical. The key point ... a name and SS number is attached...

Sunlight is the key.... not rants about big money.

There is a legit role for ANONYMOUS SPEECH. See Thomas Payne.... I think the courts should distinguish Speech as some form of Ideas being expressed. NOT CASH delivered in the dark of night.

I haven't thought about about what to do with stolen private communications now being made public... This seems different then stolen private documents and communications made within the government ostensibly for the public good/interest. So... yes... this is speech.... not so sure it should have no limits placed on it.

What we actually have to worry about is the debasement of two pillars of our democracy... independent judiciary and transfer of power.

Think about it.... it is just STUNNING for the FBI Director to go about discussing and releasing information in PRESS conferences on cases that DO NOT LEAD to judicial action months and now days before election. Yeah... he has the right of free speech... but ....See the latest dog and pony show s...t storm he created.... It threatens the basis of the constitution. This is just wrong and I can't remember any situation like this. Hell.... Ford pardoned Nixon to eliminate any chance of creating a slippery slope for judicial action against a high profile citizen getting railroaded (even if he was guilty as hell) and did this well before an election .... Comey...the republican... does not have the stones that Gerald Ford demonstrated. He seems happy to weigh in on elections rather then STFU. In this case... his free speech is undermining the basics of and independent judiciary ... one of three independent branches of government. Couple this with Trump hedging on the acceptance of the election results.... two out of the three constitutional branches of our government are BEING debased by two politicians in it for power for themselves. Wow!

Oh... and Congress... well it is supposed to do one of the few enumerated things in the constitution... advise and consent on appointments to one of the branches... WELL.... No!.... now the position seems to be... ONLY when we have a republican president will we do this job.. (see John McCain and of course the always wrong Ted Cruz)

This is about POWER.. not about Big Money... The big story is about the abuse of power... the old adage... follow the money.... well... the point is to follow the money because it leads you to and enables the abuse of power.

it ain't about the big money now....

You appear to be a libertarian. While it's good that you've found your own way, your ideas will never be tested. 

Awe, mikey is so good with those absolutes.

What does the rest of the world think about Hillary Clinton?

fyi, I'm not wasting a vote on either one of those fools.

I fond it ironic that the Clinton campaign used sex scandals to derail Trump, and now they may be brought down from an investigation of sex scandal...

The more I read about Anthony Weiner.. this guy was a real degenerate... and both Bill and Hillary stated that Anthony is the son they never had, and Humma is their second daughter...

Like many, I am not wasting a vote on either of these two scumbags.... sad that California does not allow for a write in vote...

Absoutely Carl.

The rest of the world is (selfishly) primairily interested in the foreign affairs policy of both candidates.

I think for that reason that most sympathy goes for Hilary.

Despite the fact that she sure may be a she-devil.

Doesn't matter which one wins, we've all already lost.

[video:youtube]https://youtu.be/MOwesWn3vU4[/video] RIP, Richard...

Mike

Don't do that, Karl. You'll have no reason to complain if you didn't participate. Not that you'd ever complain about anything.... right?

You need sunshine. Your vitamin D is dropping like a stone up there.. Make a stop at Steeplechase and jump on someone's boat.

Ha! that's funny Ronald! It's always good to hear what the rest of the world thinks of this train-wreck we call "politics in the media"..


My sincerest hope is that after this political show is completed November 9, we can take this enthusiasm for "the process" and maybe turn it toward USSailing or World Sailing Federation (or whatever they call it now)...

Just adding my perspective from over the pond and close to the russian border (where their most sensitive military area )

Our national media is demonizing Trump while praising Clinton. Most friends and family of mine seem to accept the media picture as truth.
Personally I find both candidates untrustable to the extreme based on their verified historical actions.


I think I just observed some flying bacon outside my office window - becouse I actually agree with Todd. Seen from my office chair, the US election for president in 2016 looks like an choice of the "lesser evil".

Whomever the next US President might be - it will no doubt continue to be interesting times.

Well, don't discount all the conspiracy theories which also abound on social media. I think one or both candidates will be convicted or go missing, leaving vice-presidential candidates in charge, or executive orders keeping the current president for a 3rd term, Russian president Putin somehow gets elected, blah blah

So many other balls in the pitch as well... Supreme Court appointments, Cabinet ministers, Congressional members, etc.

I would consider myself somewhat "informed" as a voter, but the choices are certainly distasteful at best.

This "ugly" media campaign is nothing new, however. I believe it may reach all the way back to a particularly negative election for Thomas Jefferson in 1800? So we've got quite a history of slinging darts, misleading information, character assassinations, etc.

But it does make for awesome spectating. Too bad these folks determine the future for our country (and possibly beyond that).

You can take solice in the fact that while most governments have issues, the general population worldwide is usually much more amenable.

Oh, and don't forget your "duck and cover" training. A certain radical leader is really trying hard to get a nuke missle working. This person is my real concern, as he appears to have the temprament to actually "push the button". Sanctions aren't working, so I would guess the politbureau feel there's nothing to lose...

Or almost as bad... they need money badly enough to sell this technology to other folks who have the same idea (maybe not ballistic missile, but nuclear delivery nonetheless)

Not all Donald Trump supporters are white supremacists, but all white supremacists appear to be Donald Trump supporters.

Hobie1616

If you are into white supremacy - I suggest travelling to Russia or eastern europe in general. They are good at that kind of mentality.


The dirty sort of posting you just made is part of the issue - it is not under the control of Trump and it really does not describe his politics as I understand them. But it is very useful to mentally try to smear white supremacy on Trump.
Just like the other side is smearing whatever they can on Clinton.

I find that kind of stuff tiresome and targeted at kids who are not educated and critical thinkers. But after cutting away all the dirty fluff there is still more than enough evidence of both candidates not being excatly "the right stuff" to put it mildly.

Rolf, Here's the problem. Not all republicans... even most of them are white nationalists, racists, bigots, anti Semites or in clinton's word "deplorables"... but all of these folks, who call themselves members of these groups are aligned with Trump. It took Trump a week to decline the support of one of the countries high profile politicians, an ex KKK leader. These kind words were not even as subtle as dog whistles. The behavior has caused many prominent members of the party to renounce ever voting for him... much less supporting his agenda, or fitness for office. In a two party system.... they are forced to choose.... and in not choosing risk the fates of what they see as a dangerous outcome and then be forced to shoulder their responsibility or lack there of.

These never trumpers consider that allowing ANY of these "deplorables" a seat at the table or even in the room as unacceptable and counter to their conservative governing agenda and their ability to get 270 electoral votes. 50 years ago, the conservative movement threw out the John Birch Society and the Koch brothers father for their antisemitism. .... they managed to elect Reagan and two Bushes holding to those principles by keeping the deplorable far far away ... Now even the Koch brothers decline to support Trump because the company he keeps is unacceptable.

So, the old saying.... sleep with dogs... don't be surprised by waking up with fleas is advice they are taking to heart.

Perhaps in your parliamentary system, the option of a voting for a minority party and hoping for a coalition government is a choice... but not in the States.

So? That changes nothing regarding my argument that smearing is just that. Smearing.

Calling half the population "deplorables" is not exactly policy. And Trump and the trumpists are not any better as far as I can see.

Focus on policy, what the candidates and partys say they will do, and later what they really did. Not the dirtslinging and PsyOps which is what you and Mike is bringing to the discussion now.

Regarding policy - I dont like what Hillary wants to do with the US or foreign policy, and I dont like what Trump wants to do either. :-)