-
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.
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.
-
1
- Show all
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
Here is another article discussing it:
Trump imposes lifetime ban on some lobbying, five years for others
-
1
- Show all
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.
-
1
- Show all
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.
-
2
- Show all
For all of those blasting the new voting laws in Georgia.
Georgia just had a record turnout!!!!
Over 380,000 people have early voted in Georgia
That's a 217% increase over the 2018 primary election
A 155% increase over the 2020 primary election
https://sos.ga.gov/news/record-early-voting-turnout-continues-2
Georgia just had a record turnout!!!!
Over 380,000 people have early voted in Georgia
That's a 217% increase over the 2018 primary election
A 155% increase over the 2020 primary election
https://sos.ga.gov/news/record-early-voting-turnout-continues-2
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.
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:
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.
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.
-
1
- Show all