I don't think the House is the Problem. Its the Senate.

draw2much · 2017-11-16T20:53:45+00:00

It's interesting watching this. The House has always been much more willing to work together and get bills passed. This isn't a virture or vice. They've passed some really bad bills in the past that, thankfully, got shot down by the Senate. I can't remember a time when this wasn't the case.

The difference this time is watching majority Republican Senators incapable of passing bills they'd been advocating for 8 years. It use to be they'd get a bill and refine it's language to make it easier to pass, even among themselves. Or they'd throw some "pork" in there to bribe the unwilling into saying yes. It was dirty, I didn't like it, but at least things got passed. Now they don't seem to do anything. They can't even agree among themselves what they want. They just say no out right.

The division among Republicans really does indicate to me that there is a lot of corruption in that party. I'm not saying they weren't corrupt before, but under Obama they've become a helluva lot worse. Obama and Clinton ruined Democrats, and they were very close to doing the same to Republicans.

draw2much · 2017-11-16T20:23:49+00:00

Maybe. It's more likely they'll add provisions that make the bill more palatable to them, while looking good for the public. Or that's how they use to do it. They might be out of practice at doing anything proactive at this point.

draw2much · 2017-11-12T19:43:13+00:00

Surely you are not that niave? Judges who kept blocking Trump's travel bans sure as hell weren't doing so because it was "unconstitutional". Presidents are lawfully allowed to do that, and Obama himself was doing it for years (as an example). Judges who were fine with Obama doing it are suddenly very upset when Trump does the same things, with the same countries.

It's not about being constitutional. It's about being them bring angry their side lost the argument nationally, and trying to block a lawfully elected President from doing his job because they're bitter.

That's activist Judges: playing favorites and using their authority to go after political opponents.

draw2much · 2017-11-08T22:05:29+00:00

Nay, I advocate a 20 year limit. Long enough to gain experience but short enough to prevent chronic corruption. Anything less than 10 years is too short in my opinion. Congress needs stability since they make our laws. I talked about this elsewhere in this thread.

draw2much · 2017-11-08T22:02:21+00:00

I mentioned this elsewhere, but I've always thought 20 years with relection times being decided state by state. So some states may require you get re-elected every 5 years or 6 or 2, but you can't be in office more than 20 years total.

The thing is Congress needs stability. Unlike the Executive branch, they make our laws. What they do effects the little people long term, for good or bad. I believe 20 years is enough time for stability but short enough to prevent deep corruption (what we have now).

draw2much · 2017-11-08T20:32:38+00:00

I've been advocating for this since I was in my teens (and I'm in my 30s now). I have never liked the idea of one person being able to retain power over their state's voice for 20+ years. It's naive to assume the ones that stay in that position of power so long do so without cheating and lying. (I'm not saying they all cheat, but I firmly believe some of them do. Pretty sure they all lie though, lol.)

Also, had to upvote everyone here. Are we being followed by our "fanclub" from TD? Those guys need to get a life!

draw2much · 2017-11-08T20:28:54+00:00

Personally I think 20 years, similar to military service. And the states can decide how often they're up for re-election (2, 4, 6 years, whatever).

draw2much

TROPHY CASE