November 18, 20223 yr 7 minutes ago, Outlaw said: Because I highly doubt they give a F about Hunter. This is all an end around to get at Joe. My point was bad, and I should feel bad if Joe was a R, none of you would have a problem with it. I however, have 0 problem with a President being investigated, regardless of his or her affiliation. Trump deserves to be in jail. Period. IF what they’re accusing Joe of is true, he deserves to be as well. Take off the partisan glasses for a second. On a separate note, why am I finding myself agreeing with anything Matt Gaetz has to say… https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRQPgchC/ fyp
November 18, 20223 yr Author 8 minutes ago, Outlaw said: Because I highly doubt they give a F about Hunter. This is all an end around to get at Joe. My point was if Joe was a R, none of you would have a problem with it. I however, have 0 problem with a President being investigated, regardless of his or her affiliation. Trump deserves to be in jail. Period. IF what they’re accusing Joe of is true, he deserves to be as well. Take off the partisan glasses for a second. On a separate note, why am I finding myself agreeing with anything Matt Gaetz has to say… https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRQPgchC/ I wouldn't have supported a congressional investigation into Don Jr, Trump, or Ivanka unless it was directly tied to The Donald. Complicating factor there is all the kids are involved heavily in Donald's business. Hunter has no business ties to Joe as far as I know.
November 18, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said: fyp I’ll admit that’s one of the better FYP posts I’ve seen in here. 1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said: I wouldn't have supported a congressional investigation into Don Jr, Trump, or Ivanka unless it was directly tied to The Donald. Complicating factor there is all the kids are involved heavily in Donald's business. Hunter has no business ties to Joe as far as I know. Isn’t whether they have business ties the whole point of said investigation? Biden has been a politician for the majority of his adult life. If he was doing shady ish 8 years ago…he was still the VP. I don’t see the downside of this. If the investigation goes nowhere, then Dems get a flex. If something is proven, we get rid of a corrupt politician.
November 18, 20223 yr 14 minutes ago, Toastrel said: Now that the election is over, Fox no longer feels that violent crime in America is a thing. Think that could in any way be tied to the fact that FTX happened, Twitter is happening, and post-election news is filling that air time? Either way, yes, that’s a pretty steep drop.
November 18, 20223 yr Author 16 minutes ago, Outlaw said: On a separate note, why am I finding myself agreeing with anything Matt Gaetz has to say… https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRQPgchC/ Gaetz isn't getting whatever concessions he wants from McCarthy so he's got the knives out. McCarthy is gonna have to make a lot of promised to remain speaker. I don't envy him, though he deserves it for being such a coward.
November 18, 20223 yr 1 minute ago, JohnSnowsHair said: Gaetz isn't getting whatever concessions he wants from McCarthy so he's got the knives out. McCarthy is gonna have to make a lot of promised to remain speaker. I don't envy him, though he deserves it for being such a coward. It just irks me that Gaetz is such a scumbag and I found myself nodding in agreement with him for two minutes straight.
November 18, 20223 yr Author 1 hour ago, Outlaw said: Isn’t whether they have business ties the whole point of said investigation? Biden has been a politician for the majority of his adult life. If he was doing shady ish 8 years ago…he was still the VP. I don’t see the downside of this. If the investigation goes nowhere, then Dems get a flex. If something is proven, we get rid of a corrupt politician. Because the claims are baseless. The right dragged Hillary over Benghazi for years and it was purely a political stunt. The goal was never to "expose" anything, but to toss enough crap against the wall and keep the "under investigation" narrative in the news to give the appearance of some sort of guilt. They're going to do the same to Joe via Hunter. There's zero evidence suggesting Joe benefited in any way from Hunter's poor decisions, and far more that Joe has suffered for Hunter politically and probably financially. Yet Joe is also on record supporting and loving his son unconditionally, and trying to get him the help he needs. There's no doubt that Hunter traded on his father's name and influence. That doesn't make Joe guilty. And nothing in Joe's actions towards China or Ukraine suggest otherwise.
November 18, 20223 yr It wasn't his lies. It wasn't his cruelty. It wasn't his grifting. It wasn't putting idiot children in charge of parts of the government. It wasn't his love of dictators. It wasn't his support of racists. It wasn't trying to overthrow the election. It was losing. That is the only unforgivable sin for the GOP.
November 18, 20223 yr 11 minutes ago, Toastrel said: It wasn't his lies. It wasn't his cruelty. It wasn't his grifting. It wasn't putting idiot children in charge of parts of the government. It wasn't his love of dictators. It wasn't his support of racists. It wasn't trying to overthrow the election. It was losing. That is the only unforgivable sin for the GOP. literally the only thing the repugs care about is being in power...so that tracks.
November 21, 20223 yr Regardless of what you think of Trump, I think he just said something that almost everyone can agree on. A constitutional amendment that imposes term limits on Congress. Say 2 for the Senate and... what, 3 for the House? Maybe 4 for the house? That would benefit the entire nation.
November 21, 20223 yr 14 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said: Regardless of what you think of Trump, I think he just said something that almost everyone can agree on. A constitutional amendment that imposes term limits on Congress. Say 2 for the Senate and... what, 3 for the House? Maybe 4 for the house? That would benefit the entire nation. 1. Politicians would never vote themselves out of power. 2. Proposed term limits from someone who said that term limits don’t apply to him, is laughable.
November 21, 20223 yr 15 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said: Regardless of what you think of Trump, I think he just said something that almost everyone can agree on. A constitutional amendment that imposes term limits on Congress. Say 2 for the Senate and... what, 3 for the House? Maybe 4 for the house? That would benefit the entire nation. A constitutional amendment for anything is a nearly impossible lift in 2022. And when it requires politicians to vote against their own self-interest it's even harder. And when it's proposed by a notoriously lazy and ineffective leader who constantly over promises and under delivers it's 100% guaranteed to never go anywhere.
November 21, 20223 yr 14 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said: Regardless of what you think of Trump, I think he just said something that almost everyone can agree on. A constitutional amendment that imposes term limits on Congress. Say 2 for the Senate and... what, 3 for the House? Maybe 4 for the house? That would benefit the entire nation. POTUS - (1) 6 yr term Senate - (2) 6 yr terms HoR - (3) 4 yr terms The never ending election cycle is a colossal waste of money, a detriment to policy based on conviction, and numbing burden to the voter base who has to go through it. While we're at it, SC should be 15 yrs and out. We are knee capping the SC by sitting ever younger and less qualified judges meant to pull levers left or right for eternity.
November 21, 20223 yr 7 minutes ago, Gannan said: 1. Politicians would never vote themselves out of power. 2. Proposed term limits from someone who said that term limits don’t apply to him, is laughable. yeah, unless the people can somehow force this issue, it isn't going to be changed by those who want their power and the bankrolls that come with it.
November 21, 20223 yr 3 hours ago, Gannan said: 1. Politicians would never vote themselves out of power. They aren't needed to vote for it.
November 21, 20223 yr 3 hours ago, VanHammersly said: A constitutional amendment for anything is a nearly impossible lift in 2022. And when it requires politicians to vote against their own self-interest it's even harder. And when it's proposed by a notoriously lazy and ineffective leader who constantly over promises and under delivers it's 100% guaranteed to never go anywhere. Article V of the Constitution: Quote The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. It would not be easy, and still potentially impossible, but Congress isn't needed for amendments to the Constitution.
November 21, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said: Article V of the Constitution: It would not be easy, and still potentially impossible, but Congress isn't needed for amendments to the Constitution. No, but the legislatures of 3/4ths of the states is. And those legislatures are people who aspire to federal office. They'd be voting against their own self-interest and against the urging of the parties that fund their campaigns. They would never do it.
November 21, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: And those legislatures are people who aspire to federal office. Only 15 more states are needed to sign on for the Convention to take place. That's a little under half of what's needed, so it's not like it will happen next week, if at all. But little by little, states are signing on. That's not to say that an amendment would be guaranteed, but if those states have enough support of the people, then those legislators would be wise to do what their constituents want (assuming their constituents are on board). It's not an easy task, and shouldn't be. But my point is, the Senate and House aren't needed for the process and can't directly block it from happening.
November 21, 20223 yr 2 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said: Only 15 more states are needed to sign on for the Convention to take place. That's a little under half of what's needed, so it's not like it will happen next week, if at all. But little by little, states are signing on. That's not to say that an amendment would be guaranteed, but if those states have enough support of the people, then those legislators would be wise to do what their constituents want (assuming their constituents are on board). It's not an easy task, and shouldn't be. But my point is, the Senate and House aren't needed for the process and can't directly block it from happening. If their concern is staying in office, they'd be wise to do what their parties want not the constituents. For most members of state legislature, their greatest threat is from their own party, not from the broader electorate, because they're in states that largely vote for a single party. So if they go against the will of their party, they'd be under threat from a primary challenger who's supported by the party.
November 21, 20223 yr 4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: If their concern is staying in office ... Their parties don't keep them in office, the voters do. Go against the majority of voters and you get voted out (most of the time).
November 21, 20223 yr 6 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said: Their parties don't keep them in office, the voters do. Go against the majority of voters and you get voted out (most of the time). That sounds good and all, but voter support doesn't guarantee anything. The ERA had the support of 85% of the country but languished in the ratification process for 50 years.
November 21, 20223 yr 30 minutes ago, VanHammersly said: That sounds good and all, but voter support doesn't guarantee anything. The ERA had the support of 85% of the country but languished in the ratification process for 50 years. Of course it doesn't. Actual passage and ratification of an Amendment wasn't really the point of my initial post. Just that I think that most of us can agree, regardless of which side of the aisle that we hail from, that congressional term limits would be good for the nation. Will or can it ever be accomplished? Maybe, maybe not. That doesn't mean that it isn't or wouldn't be a good thing to have happen, and that was the meaning of my initial post.
November 21, 20223 yr 2 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said: Of course it doesn't. Actual passage and ratification of an Amendment wasn't really the point of my initial post. Just that I think that most of us can agree, regardless of which side of the aisle that we hail from, that congressional term limits would be good for the nation. Will or can it ever be accomplished? Maybe, maybe not. That doesn't mean that it isn't or wouldn't be a good thing to have happen, and that was the meaning of my initial post. Maybe, maybe not. I've heard both sides of it. On one hand, it brings in younger blood, on the other hand, most of the younger blood that's gone into Congress lately has been batsheet insane.
Create an account or sign in to comment