It's a new day in America

[Mr. Blonde]

EDIT: I moved this here, where it belongs

[f3lix]

The misuse of campaign funds is a true and serious issue (even though it came from her roommate.

My point, is that she is running for senate. That seat does not obligate her to creating or controlling a budget with executive power like a Mayor, Gov. or Pres. must deal with. My lone question, is do her views match the constituents she is wanting to represent. If so, she gets elected. If not, she doesn't. It's that simple.

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by f3lix

The misuse of campaign funds is a true and serious issue (even though it came from her roommate.

My point, is that she is running for senate. That seat does not obligate her to creating or controlling a budget with executive power like a Mayor, Gov. or Pres. must deal with. My lone question, is do her views match the constituents she is wanting to represent. If so, she gets elected. If not, she doesn't. It's that simple.

Doesn't the Senate submit a budget to the president for approval? Or is it the other way around?

[Der Fuhrer]

The President proposes a budget to Congress. Congress gets together, works on it, and probably modifes it, then they vote on it. Once the budget vote passes in both houses, the President can either sign it into effect or veto the entire thing. He cannot veto individual items of the budget.

[Repugnant Abomination]

O'Donnell's Hilarious Oxford Claim - Joshua Green - Politics - The Atlantic

As a candidate for a movement that's so much about character, she is seriously failing.

[Mr. Blonde]

Not to mention this from a few days ago:

Think Progress Bill Maher’s New Clip Of O’Donnell: ‘Why Aren’t Monkeys Still Evolving Into Humans?’

[vaga1220 *]

The "Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?" Argument is just sad. They aren't Pokemon for fuck sake.

[Repugnant Abomination]

I think lying about going to Oxford is a bigger deal. The monkey comment just shows she's stupid whereas the Oxford comment shows she's a liar. So let's turn the focus back onto my post. I think my post was definitely better.

[Der Fuhrer]

Personally, I think any argument at this point in time is irrelevant. She's not going to be winning any elections, not this year, not ever.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by vaga1220

The "Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?" Argument is just sad. They aren't Pokemon for fuck sake.

It's wrong on several levels.

What we now know as monkeys are not what we evolved from.

Monkeys probably won't ever evolve into "humans", although there is a possibility of convergent evolution.

Humans are not the pinnacle of evolution, by any means. We're just as evolved as any "lower" animal.

@Repug, agreed, but we already know she's a liar from her saying she beat out Joe Biden in 2008 in a couple districts (she didn't) and she lied that she had gotten her degree in 1993 (she just got it a few weeks ago. Now she's lying about Oxford...ridiculous.


Why can't we have scientists in office like Russia and China.

[f3lix]

Originally Posted by Der Fuhrer

Personally, I think any argument at this point in time is irrelevant. She's not going to be winning any elections, not this year, not ever.

She won a primary over a major political player. How quickly we soon forget.

[Mr. Blonde]

I think he meant real elections, but in a world where Sarah Palin can be an elected governor and an appointed Vice President, anything is possible.

[f3lix]

The voters have shown they will vote for ANYBODY who is not an incumbent this year. Polling hasn't been correct either, as Tea Party Candidates are getting 5-20% more votes than what polling suggests.

[Ugly Bastard]

The tea party is a bunch of inbred, racist, Christian fundamenatlist retards that will get absolutely nothing accomplished beyond sabotaging what could have been a fruitful comeback for the GOP.

[f3lix]

I think from now on, it would be better to call the old GOP - the establishment GOP and the new wave The Tea Party. They are two totally different breads of people.

For one, I'm all for establishment getting thrown out of Congress. Whether it be GOP or Dem, Establishment candidates are groomed by the same people and make gov't bigger.

[Ugly Bastard]

I just think you're expecting a lot out of these tea party types. Not only are they clearly not very bright, but I also think it's a mistake to assume they are looking out for the interests of the people. They're power hungry humans - they're looking out for themselves by seizing an easy opportunity to get a bunch of people on their side (in this case, inbred, racist white hicks who secretly or not so secretly are unsettled at the thought of a big black dong in the oval office). To expect them to be competent or caring enough to look out for your particular interests is, in my estimation, unwise.

[f3lix]

I just want career politicians out. I don't really foresee these Tea Party peeps doing much damage. They just might surprise us, for better or worse, at least I'm willing to give a new batch of people a shot.

[ninjaface]

Career politicians are not the problem. Campaign finance is the problem. The Supreme Court decision to give corporations "personhood" (the legal status of a human being) is only making it worse.

Corporations can now donate unlimited funds to political campaigns. Any corporation - even foreign-owned. Not only that, but these companies can dump money into fake "grass roots" organizations who then place ads on television and elsewhere without having to identify who endorsed the ad.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally Posted by f3lix

I just want career politicians out.

F3lix, this is something i've been thinking about a lot lately, in regard to working in the political sphere. Traditionally, a lot of politicians (Starting with the founding fathers) have been small business owners or had a private practice (lawyer, etc.). So if someone leaves their job to work for the nation for a 4 or 6 year term, then doesn't get re-elected, doesn't that kind of screw them? Are they usually expected to keep up their other profession as well, or take a several-year break and return to it if they fail to get re-elected? Don't we kind of "create" career politicians?

[Der Fuhrer]

Originally Posted by f3lix

I just want career politicians out.

This. The best politicians are those who haven't staked their entire career on reelection.

[f3lix]

Ninjaface - the financing isn't a problem, it's the idiots who don't do any research on their own, don't know who they really are supporting, and press a button (or pull a lever) for some yahoo based on some tv ads.

Blonde, the money made being in public office is large, with many benefits, and little to worry about. That's why there are career politicians, whom can afford to lose (be jobless for 4-6 years) and come back like nothing happened. When was the last time you saw a former politician working in any job that you'd run into them in daily life?

[Mr. Blonde]

I see. I feel very naive for this line of questioning, but I honestly think that it's something a lot of people don't think about (A- because you don't regularly hear about the public life of politicians other than scandals and B- because most of our politicians ARE career politicians) -- What does a senator, or representative do when they lose an election after a spot they've held for let's say, 4 or 6 or 8 years? Try to go for a lesser office? Or just wait until the next election?

[DDTempest]

Originally Posted by Mr. Blonde

I see. I feel very naive for this line of questioning, but I honestly think that it's something a lot of people don't think about (A- because you don't regularly hear about the public life of politicians other than scandals and B- because most of our politicians ARE politicians) -- What does a senator, or representative do when they lose an election after a spot they've held for let's say, 4 or 6 or 8 years? Try to go for a lesser office? Or just wait until the next election?

I think a lot of the time they "consult" whatever that is.

[ninjaface]

Originally Posted by f3lix

Ninjaface - the financing isn't a problem, it's the idiots who don't do any research on their own, don't know who they really are supporting, and press a button (or pull a lever) for some yahoo based on some tv ads.

I think corporate sponsorship of politicians is a problem. The constituents are no longer concern #1 at that point. They want to keep those companies happy so once they are out of their current office, they can be a part of the revolving door of heading corporations - holding public office - heading corporations - holding public office - and so on. This includes a seat on the house or senate, being a mayor, governor, presidential appointee, cabinet member, etc, etc.

Just look at Donald Rumsfeld. He worked with the Reagan administration as special envoy to the Middle East where he met with the likes of Saddam Hussein. He also worked with the Nixon and Ford administration.

And for his corporate side, he was Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G. D. Searle & Company, a worldwide pharmaceutical company.

He is one example of many more just like him.

[thekremlin]

I'm late to this conversation, so excuse me if I go over old ground.

It seems like when people criticize politicians, it is because they think they're either stupid or dishonest. Well OK. This is a job that is poorly paid. In general, the people who are going to be drawn to it either can't make money elsewhere, or they plan on using the job to make money in other ways (dishonestly.) This might not be the solution everyone wants to here, but wouldn't it make sense to pay politicians more? Incent smart people to do a good job. That's how profit-maximizing companies play it, why does government have to be different?