Jump to content
270soft Forum

Term-limits, and other random questions, poll


Term Limits poll, and other random questions  

21 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the following statements do you agree with? [Please comment below to elaborate on your views]

    • US Reps should be term limited.
    • US Reps should have a retirement age.
    • US Senators should be term limited
    • US Senators should have a retirement age.
    • Supreme Court justices should be term limited
    • Supreme Court justices should have a retirement age
    • US Presidents should be term limited
    • US presidents should have a retirement age
    • US Vice Presidents should be term limited
    • US Vice Presidents should have a retirement age
    • Members of the cabinet, and other major federal executive officials, should have a retirement age
    • Military officers should have a retirement age
    • I don't support any term limits or any retirement age for these offices.
  2. 2. Which of the following radical popular vote ideas would you support? [Comment below]

    • Popular vote for Vice President
    • Popular vote for Justices of the Supreme Court
      0
    • Popular vote for cabinet members
    • Abolishing the Electoral College
    • I don't support any of the above proposals.
  3. 3. Which of the following things should a candidate release in order to run for president [Note: Regardless of what is released, they cannot be barred for running, as long as they release it]?

    • Release all of their tax returns
    • Release a bill of physical health
    • Release a mental health analysis to check for potential mental illness, including sociopathy.
    • Release of grades from college, grad school, law school, medical school, etc., if applicable
    • Release of police records (criminal records, DUI information, etc.), if appliable
    • Release of banking information in overseas banks, if applicable
    • Release of military record, if applicable
    • Release of private emails
    • CIA and FBI should be forced to release any information it has on the candidate for public scrutiny.
    • In addition to some or all of these, I think a candidate should be barred from running if terrible things are revealed on some of these releases.
    • I disagree with all of the above proposals. A candidate should be able to run if they want to, without interference into their private lives.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, vcczar said:

Thinking about John McCain, Thad Cochran, Donald Trump, and other aging politicians, that could soon show mental decline, if not already.

The idea that abolishing the Electoral College is considering radical, yet Americans go on abroad that other nations are less free, and have government less decided by and of the people, coming down on unfree and rigged elections abroad, when the Electoral College, and two-party Duopoly (and the Primary System, which ends up with the winning candidate of given election generally having, in truth, far less than majority support, often only a small fraction of popular support, because they end up a second-, or worse-, tier, or priority, choice to those within their own party), but this highly unrepresentative, easily manipulated (which it has been in American history), and broken system is so entrenched that saying to abolish it and replace it with the popular vote used for all other republic's heads-of-state in the world who are directly elected, or even American state governors, as being "radical," shows that the majority of American don't realize how horrible and flawed their political system really is, especially while such American are bragging about, or trying to school people on governance, abroad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

the popular vote used for all other republic's heads-of-state in the world who are directly elected, or even American state governors

Georgia's County Unit System, a system similar to the Electoral College used to select the governor, was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.  Justice William O Douglas wrote in the majority opinion "The concept of political equality...can mean only one thing—one person, one vote."  US presidential elections don't even meet American standards for political fairness.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2017 at 1:23 PM, vcczar said:

Thinking about John McCain, Thad Cochran, Donald Trump, and other aging politicians, that could soon show mental decline, if not already.

And Bernie (76) and Hillary (69) too, right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

And Bernie (76) and Hillary (69) too, right?

Yes, they shouldn't have run. I was thinking of McCain and Cochran because of their health problems, and Trump because he seems sort of mentally unwell in a way that could be linked to aging. I think there should be a 65 or 70 year retirement age on all Federal offices. Anyone "retired" can freely have an unofficial advisory position. Let's say 70. This means any president wishing to serve a full two terms would have to be at least 62. 

If the retirement age were 70, then 30 senators would be forced to retire! That shows you how ancient the senate is. If it were a 65 year retirement age, then 47 would have to retire. If 80, then only 8. 

I'd advocate a retirement age at 70, across all federal positions, as was as two terms for elected office, and 10 year maximum for unelected offices (Supreme Court, Chairman of Fed, etc.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Yes, they shouldn't have run. I was thinking of McCain and Cochran because of their health problems, and Trump because he seems sort of mentally unwell in a way that could be linked to aging. I think there should be a 65 or 70 year retirement age on all Federal offices. Anyone "retired" can freely have an unofficial advisory position. Let's say 70. This means any president wishing to serve a full two terms would have to be at least 62. 

If the retirement age were 70, then 30 senators would be forced to retire! That shows you how ancient the senate is. If it were a 65 year retirement age, then 47 would have to retire. If 80, then only 8. 

I'd advocate a retirement age at 70, across all federal positions, as was as two terms for elected office, and 10 year maximum for unelected offices (Supreme Court, Chairman of Fed, etc.)

I am disturbed by 9 voters out of 17 effectively believing that outside an impeachment vote (which is a purely political process that in all likely practice has little to do with justice or wrongdoing), that a federal official should be considered automatically "above reproach," when no private citizen not elected to such an office has such an entitlement to protections from their wrongdoings, dark secrets, or infirmities. I believe this opinion is tantamount to supporting old style "aristocratic privilege" and has no place in a modern Constitutional system of governance and law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patine said:

I am disturbed by 9 voters out of 17 effectively believing that outside an impeachment vote (which is a purely political process that in all likely practice has little to do with justice or wrongdoing), that a federal official should be considered automatically "above reproach," when no private citizen not elected to such an office has such an entitlement to protections from their wrongdoings, dark secrets, or infirmities. I believe this opinion is tantamount to supporting old style "aristocratic privilege" and has no place in a modern Constitutional system of governance and law.

It is weird. I don't understand why conservatives oppose this. I feel like they'd be behind this as much as, if not more, than progressives. This is especially the case for social conservatives, who would probably want such released to verify the integrity of their candidate, since you can extrapolate much about their behavior from these sorts of things. 

Do you conservative oppose this because they feel that their candidates are more likely to be damaged from such releases? I hope not. I think both parties would be equally likely to have candidates damaged by these rules. They aren't ideological rule, leaning towards one side or the other. They're nonpartisan rules, if they ever became part of the campaign laws. Yet, we seem to have a close to partisan vote on them, which is truly odd to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It is weird. I don't understand why conservatives oppose this. I feel like they'd be behind this as much as, if not more, than progressives. This is especially the case for social conservatives, who would probably want such released to verify the integrity of their candidate, since you can extrapolate much about their behavior from these sorts of things. 

Do you conservative oppose this because they feel that their candidates are more likely to be damaged from such releases? I hope not. I think both parties would be equally likely to have candidates damaged by these rules. They aren't ideological rule, leaning towards one side or the other. They're nonpartisan rules, if they ever became part of the campaign laws. Yet, we seem to have a close to partisan vote on them, which is truly odd to me. 

The wording of the question is unconstitutional, there should be no requirement to run for office, if you are going to run then run, no requirements should be made lest we lose the ability of the people to elect whom they like via the electoral college of the states.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

The wording of the question is unconstitutional, there should be no requirement to run for office, if you are going to run then run, no requirements should be made lest we lose the ability of the people to elect whom they like via the electoral college of the states.

The information on those documents wouldn't bar them from running. The way that they would do this would be similar to the McGovern election reform laws, following the 1968 election. They'd have to do it through the parties. In this way, someone could run independent and refuse to comply with the election reform, but they couldn't run under parties that comply to the rule changes. Ideally, these documents would be given voluntarily, and if enough candidates do it, then any candidate not complying might look nefarious by association. I think the voters--Democrats, Republicans, or 3rd parties, deserve to know what kind of candidate they can expect to vote for.

Even better, since a candidate has to go through a process to get on any state ballot, is if the states add this verification for ballot access. All it takes is for one state to agree to this, and then the information is out. California was going to force tax returns, but I think the main reason Jerry Brown went against it is probably because he wants to protect some people that are probably going to run as Democrats.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

The wording of the question is unconstitutional, there should be no requirement to run for office, if you are going to run then run, no requirements should be made lest we lose the ability of the people to elect whom they like via the electoral college of the states.

Some of the above things should be added, regardless of Constitutional law. Like mental health. Consider such world leaders as Kim, Nyazov, Qadaffi, and Mputo, who were obviously loopy as Hell. That should DEFINITELY be a disqualifier for the White House, regardless of pure Constitutional law. Remember, the Philadelphia Convention was more than a half century before Freud's heyday, when the only definitions of mental illness were "touched," "eccentric," possessed," "obviously senile," or "raving lunatic for reasons unknown," and thus the issue couldn't realistically have been expected to be addressed competently or coherently at that time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Presidentinsertname said:

you are only saying it because you want him out of office. 

I've only opined possibilities. You are the one that just made a statement worded as fact that you claimed to know for sure with authority. And, I believe the mental health of everyone of great political power should be scrutinized and be a possible vehicle for eviction from office - not just Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Patine said:

Some of the above things should be added, regardless of Constitutional law. Like mental health. Consider such world leaders as Kim, Nyazov, Qadaffi, and Mputo, who were obviously loopy as Hell. That should DEFINITELY be a disqualifier for the White House, regardless of pure Constitutional law. Remember, the Philadelphia Convention was more than a half century before Freud's heyday, when the only definitions of mental illness were "touched," "eccentric," possessed," "obviously senile," or "raving lunatic for reasons unknown," and thus the issue couldn't realistically have been expected to be addressed competently or coherently at that time.

@JDrakeify @willpaddyg @daons @LegolasRedbard @Prussian1871 @wolves @SirLagsalott @michaelsdiamonds @victorraiders @Patine @Falcon @jnewt @President Garrett Walker @Reagan04 @Conservative Elector 2 @SeanFKennedy @vcczar @jvikings1 @harveyrayson2 @lizarraba @TheMiddlePolitical @CalebsParadox @MrPrez @msc123123 @NYrepublican  @RI Democrat @servo75 @Presidentinsertname  @ThePotatoWalrus @Sunnymentoaddict @TheLiberalKitten @Quebecois @avatarmushi @Sami

I'm a bit surprised that no one but @Presidentinsertname, who alleged me of solely targeting Trump alone out of personal distaste, has any response to a mechanism of eviction from office not surrounding the political theatre that is impeachment or requirement of sound psychological nature to be inaugurated to deal with a President who is verifiably too mentally ill to hold office competently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...