Drain the Swamp

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

PF5

Deputy
Jan 3, 2014
1,535
438
713
#22
To say that everyone in government is corrupt and should be kicked out is kind of stupid. Having people around that have experience and Have seen past things go terribly wrong is not always a bad thing. What we need is people of character to fill elected office.
not everyone is corrupt, true (only 97% are)...if you have people with experience and have seen things go wrong and continue to keep doing those same things; that is kind of stupid.
 
Feb 7, 2007
16,902
17,376
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#24
No Dem or GOP would have to vote out their party necessarily. Just if they would primary their incumbent to get new blood in there that would be great.
Unfortunately, far far far too many people don't seem to know or care what a primary is. On a good year primaries get about 20% turnout. Turnout was up in the last midterm primaries, mainly among democrats. Will be curious to see what turnout is like for this midterm.
 

OSUCowboy787

Territorial Marshal
Dec 31, 2008
7,269
4,881
1,743
34
Keller, Texas
#25
Unfortunately, far far far too many people don't seem to know or care what a primary is. On a good year primaries get about 20% turnout. Turnout was up in the last midterm primaries, mainly among democrats. Will be curious to see what turnout is like for this midterm.
In the past I'd agree with you, mostly, but It appears Madison Cawthorn was just primaried.
 
Feb 7, 2007
16,902
17,376
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#26
For those of you complaining about there being only two major political parties what is your solution to form a third political party while not infringing upon peoples freedom of assembly?
This is the real issue. Technically we the people still control which parties and how many are in Congress. How many people complain but still cast their vote for R's and D's. The people in charge in DC will never change things themselves. Can't just hope it happens, have to start voting 3rd party.
 
Jun 14, 2011
1,157
830
1,743
#31
This is the real issue. Technically we the people still control which parties and how many are in Congress. How many people complain but still cast their vote for R's and D's. The people in charge in DC will never change things themselves. Can't just hope it happens, have to start voting 3rd party.
I have always wanted to see laws/rules/etc. enacted to remove any mention of any political party from the ballots. Let the candidates positions be the deciding factor. Checking a box to vote all R or D is madness, in my opinion. However, I have a pretty good idea how a suggestion like that would go over with certain people/parties in the position to actually make those changes.
 
May 4, 2011
3,448
1,571
1,743
Charleston, SC
#32
I have always wanted to see laws/rules/etc. enacted to remove any mention of any political party from the ballots. Let the candidates positions be the deciding factor. Checking a box to vote all R or D is madness, in my opinion. However, I have a pretty good idea how a suggestion like that would go over with certain people/parties in the position to actually make those changes.
Ditto and with that you'd remove primaries. If no candidate gets a majority on the first go round, do a runoff. Stop candidates incentive to run to the base. It's a vestigial remnant of an archaic system where party bosses gathered to pick their candidate.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,500
18,174
1,743
#33
This is the real issue. Technically we the people still control which parties and how many are in Congress. How many people complain but still cast their vote for R's and D's. The people in charge in DC will never change things themselves. Can't just hope it happens, have to start voting 3rd party.
It starts at home.
 
Feb 7, 2007
16,902
17,376
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#34
I have always wanted to see laws/rules/etc. enacted to remove any mention of any political party from the ballots. Let the candidates positions be the deciding factor. Checking a box to vote all R or D is madness, in my opinion. However, I have a pretty good idea how a suggestion like that would go over with certain people/parties in the position to actually make those changes.
Yeah it's crazy to think about. For us to be able to get parties off the ballot, we would have to elect people from other parties to agree to do that. But if we were capable of electing other parties it would no longer be that important to remove them from the ballot in the first place.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
54,500
18,174
1,743
#36
Yeah it's crazy to think about. For us to be able to get parties off the ballot, we would have to elect people from other parties to agree to do that. But if we were capable of electing other parties it would no longer be that important to remove them from the ballot in the first place.
What makes us think they would be any different?

If they are a GREAT candidate why don't they just run as a Republican or Democrat? If they were really GREAT why don't they get the votes and wide support regardless of what political party they belong to?

Regardless of how you try political parties will form, that is until we lose the freedom of assembly. When those parties form the most electable candidates will migrate to the strongest political party to enhance their chances of getting elected. At that point nothing really changes as they will be exactly like the parties people complain about.
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,682
20,991
1,743
#37
I briefly tried to find it but couldn't. I'll try more later.

Here is another article discussing it:

Trump imposes lifetime ban on some lobbying, five years for others
All while having people in his administration that were previously registered representative of foreign governments.

Also, (from the cited article) "banning administration officials from ever lobbying the U.S. on behalf of a foreign government and imposing a separate five-year ban on other lobbying." is very different than "shutting down lobbying in DC" while he was in office. It's not even an apples/oranges comparison....more like comparing apples to recliners.

Prohibiting people that you appoint to your administration from lobbying in the future on behalf of a foreign government and imposing a separate five-year ban on other lobbying is a far, far cry from shutting down lobbying in DC.

Particularly when his supposed "ban" was by executive order that has little to no effect or ability to be enforce once someone is no longer in the administration and which by its terms could be waived at the pleasure and discretion of the President.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,682
20,991
1,743
#38
I would love to read that article. Link, perhaps?
Lobbyists were in no way shut out of DC or the Trump administration during his term.

Source: I know several lobbyists personally that were VERY active in DC and the White House at the time.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
7,997
3,291
1,743
47
DFW
#39
Lobbyists were in no way shut out of DC or the Trump administration during his term.

Source: I know several lobbyists personally that were VERY active in DC and the White House at the time.
That was my assumption. I read the article about the EO and it was VERY limited in scope. It was basically just an extension of Obama’s EO.