Recruiting Forum Off Topic Thread III

Status
Not open for further replies.
#19,677
#19,677
Volator said:
Wasn't ignoring you as I walked the dog to get fresh air. Don't disagree that some of those items are good, HOWEVER there is a time to negotiate and this is not the time since the Senate bill had bipartisan input but has been painted as a R bill. Critical to get some programs going for both the citizens and the markets. The rancor between parties has become and downward spiral for this country as career politicians put their self interest both all others which is why I am a supporter of term limits for ALL politicans even at the state level.
Click to expand...
Only issue I've seen with term limits is a lack of continuity/experience. It may also not (depending on examples I've seen) take care of the "constantly campaigning" issue. That might be the most detrimental part of lifetime politicians. A congressman spends 6 months working...then back to campaigning for the next term.

I have been in favor of staggered terms. Let them serve a term, maybe even 2 or 3, but then they have to go back to the real world and connect with it. Then, they may be able to return after 1-3 terms, depending on the specifics. It doesn't allow lifetime politicans, but it could retain some experience and leadership as well. And having to cycle out means they can spend the full tern DOING THEIR JOB, rather than campaigning half of their term.

It allows some experience to remain, assuming they can get reelected. It forces some to get back to the real world and stop campaigning. But it also doesn't cut off all veteran experience and leadership.

My worry with strict term limits is we may just have fresh polticians all the time trying to learn the ropes. Like any job, it takes time and experience to get down. If you and everyone else in the entire entity has no more than 5 years on the job, that is not a good environment for stability, mentorship, and understanding. Imagine if you had all new c-level leadership and middle managers every 6 years, or every 2. It would be chaos.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drvenner and titansvolsfaninga
#19,678
#19,678
Geaux_Vols said:
the prohibition of stock buy-backs is 100% a dem input.

the slush-fund issue is the lack of transparency. mnuchin is asking to not have to reveal who gets what for 6mo. there's no accountability as currently written.
Click to expand...
Stock buybacks are out of control in general. Artifical pumping of stocks for years now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drvenner and Geaux_Vols
#19,679
#19,679
Geaux_Vols said:
the prohibition of stock buy-backs is 100% a dem input.

the slush-fund issue is the lack of transparency. mnuchin is asking to not have to reveal who gets what for 6mo. there's no accountability as currently written.
Click to expand...
Geaux, all that is fine, and there needs to be bipartisan negotiations for the issue at hand. The bill was fine and if they wanted to change some things then vote on that. But the dems are using this opportunity push agendas that are unrelated to the present crisis that needs fixed now.

How do risk limiting audits of elections help the present crisis? How about articles about corporate board diversity? Early voting? Same day voter registration? Collective bargaining agreement? Airline emissions? Expansion of minority banks? Budgets dedicated to diversity and inclusion?

Those are all dem agenda items that they put in their bill, none of which have to do with the present crisis or would help in any way. Do you not see the problem with this? They are trying to manipulate this crisis to accomplish their purposes and because of that they are damaging the economy and holding the American people who need help in limbo. It is as clear as day. If they want to debate actual points, fine, but these are worthless agenda talking points that don’t belong in the relief bill!
 
  • Like
Reactions: drvenner and Exiled
#19,680
#19,680
Geaux_Vols said:
i hear ya. it just seems that he has very little interest in the core planks of the historical dem platform, which is fine, i was only pushing back on the the notion that your average dem agreed with what he was saying.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. Like he said tho.. times like these TERM LIMITS scream in my head. What a mess this is
 
  • Like
Reactions: drvenner, VOLSONLY and Geaux_Vols
#19,682
#19,682
Bassmaster_Vol said:
Geaux, all that is fine, and there needs to be bipartisan negotiations for the issue at hand. The bill was fine and if they wanted to change some things then vote on that. But the dems are using this opportunity push agendas that are unrelated to the present crisis that needs fixed now.

How do risk limiting audits of elections help the present crisis? How about articles about corporate board diversity? Early voting? Same day voter registration? Collective bargaining agreement? Airline emissions? Expansion of minority banks? Budgets dedicated to diversity and inclusion?

Those are all dem agenda items that they put in their bill, none of which have to do with the present crisis or would help in any way. Do you not see the problem with this? They are trying to manipulate this crisis to accomplish their purposes and because of that they are damaging the economy and holding the American people who need help in limbo. It is as clear as day. If they want to debate actual points, fine, but these are worthless agenda talking points that don’t belong in the relief bill!
Click to expand...

there was a bipartisan bill up until saturday night, when R's walked away and came back with no real funding to save hospitals, no real funding to assist states, and corporate hand-outs with no transparency. It's $1.5T, there's no reason those items should stand.

the rest is indeed calculated political strategy. dems have been trying to secure election protections for a year now and R's have shot it down every time. they've BEEN trying to get that done to no avail. so think of it if the situation was reversed. you throw that in because its important for democracy, and if the bill gets sent back because of it, you get to say R's are actively trying to keep elections unprotected. same with the rest. and frankly, mcconnell called for a recess for three days to hang out with bret kavenaugh last weekend, so let's spare the idea he's desperately fighting the clock to get something done. dems have leverage here, good on them for finally using it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: titansvolsfaninga
#19,684
#19,684
Geaux_Vols said:
there was a bipartisan bill up until saturday night, when R's walked away and came back with no real funding to save hospitals, no real funding to assist states, and corporate hand-outs with no transparency. It's $1.5T, there's no reason those items should stand.

the rest is indeed calculated political strategy. dems have been trying to secure election protections for a year now and R's have shot it down every time. they've BEEN trying to get that done to no avail. so think of it if the situation was reversed. you throw that in because its important for democracy, and if the bill gets sent back because of it, you get to say R's are actively trying to keep elections unprotected. same with the rest. and frankly, mcconnell called for a recess for three days to hang out with bret kavenaugh last weekend, so let's spare the idea he's desperately fighting the clock to get something done. dems have leverage here, good on them for finally using it.
Click to expand...
They are desperately fighting the clock for the past three days and dems are worried about inclusion and climate. That stuff should be debated at a later time, not now.

If there were problems with the bill, then debate those issues. This is a game to them
 
  • Like
Reactions: ALLVOL24/7/365
#19,685
#19,685
Bassmaster_Vol said:
They are desperately fighting the clock for the past three days and dems are worried about inclusion and climate. That stuff should be debated at a later time, not now.
Click to expand...

i'm sorry, you don't get to make that argument when the senate majority leader is calling recesses in the middle of a pandemic to attend a judges' swearing in. its entirely a show.

Also, there ARE problems with the meat of the bill (no real funding to save hospitals, no real funding to assist states, and corporate hand-outs with no transparency), which is what's being negotiated now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: titansvolsfaninga
#19,687
#19,687
Devo182 said:
Only issue I've seen with term limits is a lack of continuity/experience. It may also not (depending on examples I've seen) take care of the "constantly campaigning" issue. That might be the most detrimental part of lifetime politicians. A congressman spends 6 months working...then back to campaigning for the next term.

I have been in favor of staggered terms. Let them serve a term, maybe even 2 or 3, but then they have to go back to the real world and connect with it. Then, they may be able to return after 1-3 terms, depending on the specifics. It doesn't allow lifetime politicans, but it could retain some experience and leadership as well. And having to cycle out means they can spend the full tern DOING THEIR JOB, rather than campaigning half of their term.

It allows some experience to remain, assuming they can get reelected. It forces some to get back to the real world and stop campaigning. But it also doesn't cut off all veteran experience and leadership.

My worry with strict term limits is we may just have fresh polticians all the time trying to learn the ropes. Like any job, it takes time and experience to get down. If you and everyone else in the entire entity has no more than 5 years on the job, that is not a good environment for stability, mentorship, and understanding. Imagine if you had all new c-level leadership and middle managers every 6 years, or every 2. It would be chaos.
Click to expand...

Learning the ropes is also how to manipulate the system. The challenge with your idea of getting a real job is they would become lobbyist. Otherwise I like your idea. Senators should be limited to 2 or 3 (12 -18 years) terms with representatives at 5 term (10 years). Thoughts?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Geaux_Vols
#19,688
#19,688
GiggerVol said:
Not only was Reagan a great president, he was also a great communicator and orator. Trump has so far done a great job. He's fantastic on the campaign trail but press conferences are not his strong suit. Got to meet both and have shaken both's hands.
Click to expand...
Actually sat at the same table with him back in 94 at a dinner at a club in Florida. Who freaking knew he’d be POTUS?:oops:
trump .....
 
#19,689
#19,689
giphy.gif
 
#19,698
#19,698
Geaux_Vols said:
i'm sorry, you don't get to make that argument when the senate majority leader is calling recesses in the middle of a pandemic to attend a judges' swearing in. its entirely a show.

Also, there ARE problems with the meat of the bill (no real funding to save hospitals, no real funding to assist states, and corporate hand-outs with no transparency), which is what's being negotiated now.
Click to expand...
It’s unbelievable to me that you can defend Pelosi and what they’re doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volbucky and ALLVOL24/7/365
#19,700
#19,700
Geaux_Vols said:
Spare me. McConnell has been one of the most vile people to serve in Congress in a generation. Trump is as inept as he is dishonest. Besides all that, it’s a bad bill. Period. It deserves to be held up.
Click to expand...
They aren’t debating the bill. Ive demonstrated that numerous times. They’re trying to add agenda line items that have nothing to do with this bill or with helping this situation. So spare me, please. Let’s not compare honesty when you’re defending Pelosi, Schumer, and the collusion hoaxers not to mention the people who tried to destroy Kavanaugh for political gain
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volbucky
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.

VN Store



Back
Top