President Trump Thread (Part 2)

[Cowboysrock55]

Ask yourselves this.

Did term limits keep corruption out of the White House or nah?

There's your answer for Congress.

If you think the Biden administration was one of the most corrupt in history but think term limits would somehow help the corruption in Congress, your thoughts are incongruent.

It kept someone like Obama from being President for the rest of his life. So did it keep corruption out of the white house? No, nothing will entirely do that. But it allowed for change. Something voters are too stupid to do on their own. Sorry to say that but it's true. A guy could be in a coma and the voters would re-elect him based purely off name recognition.

You give the DNC too much credit. For example they handpicked Kamala to run against Trump. But do you think she would have won the primary had there actually been one? Absolutely not. She has always been very disliked. Hell the primary against Biden she didn't even register on the radar she was so awful.

Anyway, I think you're really just arguing that term limits wouldn't change anything. If you're trying to argue that they will actually make things worse I must say I think you're out of your mind.

Anyway I'll end this by saying the DNC doesn't control elections as much as you think. Funding is important but it's not always the most well funded candidate that wins. Look no further then Trump who the RNC never really wanted as President.

 

[Genghis Khan]

It kept someone like Obama from being President for the rest of his life.

And resulted in Biden instead. Did it really help? No it was even worse.

And did Obama have influence behind the scenes during Biden's presidency? Oh.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like presidents serving more than 2 terms because of Washington's precedent, but Congress has no such traditions.

Had we had Congressional term limits we wouldn't have had the long term benefits of guys like Clay, Webster, and Quincy Adams among many others.

Yes, I'm right about this.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

And resulted in Biden instead. Did it really help? No it was even worse.

Pretty sure Trump was in there in between...

I'll mark you down as a fan of Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell and move on now. Big fan of the 40 year lifer.

And for me, I'll be thankful that Obama isn't still President and wish that we could do the same with the Senate and House. But it's not worth arguing over because it's never going to change. You'll never get the Senate or House to agree to not become filthy rich with 40 year careers. Which is also how I know you're wrong. Otherwise they'd all support term limits if it was as beneficial as you say. That Nancy Pelosi would be even more powerful sliding into a cushy DNC job for example. There is a reason why it doesn't happen and the DNC/RNC and lifer politicians don't want it.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Pretty sure Trump was in there in between...

I'll mark you down as a fan of Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell and move on now. Big fan of the 40 year lifer.

And for me, I'll be thankful that Obama isn't still President and wish that we could do the same with the Senate and House. But it's not worth arguing over because it's never going to change. You'll never get the Senate or House to agree to not become filthy rich with 40 year careers. Which is also how I know you're wrong. Otherwise they'd all support term limits if it was as beneficial as you say. That Nancy Pelosi would be even more powerful sliding into a cushy DNC job for example. There is a reason why it doesn't happen and the DNC/RNC and lifer politicians don't want it.

I think you're missing my point. Obviously it's beneficial for the individual politicians or they wouldn't be doing it.

But what's the difference between 1 Nancy Pelosi or splitting the same money between 10 Nancy Pelosis? The end result is the same. Lobbyist money and kickbacks and insider trading and whatnot all still happens at the same rate, with or without term limits.

I would think that's pretty obvious.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I think you're missing my point. Obviously it's beneficial for the individual politicians or they wouldn't be doing it.

But what's the difference between 1 Nancy Pelosi or splitting the same money between 10 Nancy Pelosis? The end result is the same. Lobbyist money and kickbacks and insider trading and whatnot all still happens at the same rate, with or without term limits.

I would think that's pretty obvious.

I think you're missing the obvious. 10 different people allows for the possibility of 10 different outcomes. 1 person allows for one outcome. By limiting yourself to one person you're restricting yourself to a guaranteed piece of shit. But with 10 rolls of the dice, I'll at least assume not all humans are as awful as say Nancy Pelosi. So I've got a pretty good shot of getting someone better in there. You're assuming all people are the same. I'm assuming they aren't. But even if you're right, term limits don't hurt anything, they just keep the status quo with different faces, but if I'm right it improves things significantly. So logically you should want term limits then.

 

[Genghis Khan]

I think you're missing the obvious. 10 different people allows for the possibility of 10 different outcomes. 1 person allows for one outcome. By limiting yourself to one person you're restricting yourself to a guaranteed piece of shit. But with 10 rolls of the dice, I'll at least assume not all humans are as awful as say Nancy Pelosi. So I've got a pretty good shot of getting someone better in there. You're assuming all people are the same. I'm assuming they aren't. But even if you're right, term limits don't hurt anything, they just keep the status quo with different faces, but if I'm right it improves things significantly. So logically you should want term limits then.

Nah, I think what you're missing is that it's the same lobbyists and whatnot. So why would there be 10 different outcomes? They're making sure it's the same outcome every time.

In the meantime, my freedom to vote for, say, Rand Paul 3 or more times is stomped on the curb.

So what happens in reality is that the Pelosi types are still in charge from the DNC and pulling everyone's strings, all the same corruption is still in place so nothing changes, but now I can't continue to vote for my favorite congressman because they decided to punish everyone for the sins of not everyone.

That's not a good outcome from any angle.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

But it's not worth arguing over because it's never going to change. You'll never get the Senate or House to agree to not become filthy rich with 40 year careers.

This is the key point. It won't happen anyway. Just like they won't pass a law against insider trading.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

In the meantime, my freedom to vote for, say, Rand Paul 3 or more times is stomped on the curb.

U.S. Term Limits is pleased to announce that Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), a dependable advocate for term limits in the Senate, has signed the U.S. Term Limits Presidential Pledge.

Paul, a Republican vying for the White House in 2016, signed the pledge after making term limits a part of his plan to "defeat the Washington machine."

Maybe you shouldn't be voting for Paul then, because he appears to agree with me...

 

[Genghis Khan]

U.S. Term Limits is pleased to announce that Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), a dependable advocate for term limits in the Senate, has signed the U.S. Term Limits Presidential Pledge.

Paul, a Republican vying for the White House in 2016, signed the pledge after making term limits a part of his plan to "defeat the Washington machine."

Maybe you shouldn't be voting for Paul then, because he appears to agree with me...

I just chose a name that most people would agree isn't corrupt like Pelosi. It's not about him specifically.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I just chose a name that most people would agree isn't corrupt like Pelosi. It's not about him specifically.

I know, just found it funny that the least corrupt guy agrees with me... And he is up close seeing all those inner workings.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

 

[Chocolate Lab]

 

[Bipo]

Great news, I guess, if you are a fan of even more executive power.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Anyone who knows the law knows this is the correct ruling.

 

[Bipo]

My feeling is that this is great news if your party of choice is the Executive. Not so much if it isn’t.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

My feeling is that this is great news if your party of choice is the Executive. Not so much if it isn’t.

Regardless, the foounders never intended for one judge in San Francisco or anyplace else to override a president duly elected by the entire county.

I mean, obviously.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

What is it they say about absolute power?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

TDS deranges.

Absolute TDS deranges absolutely.

 

[Irving Cowboy]

Trump Devotion Syndrome. Absolutely

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Do you disagree with the Court's decision on this, Irv?