Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
don't
You mean what the WSJ called the "The Stifle Speech Act of 2022"? The bill that one party has advanced one way or another but failed repeatedly for about a dozen years now? The bill that would "dox deplorables"*? That bill?
No i figured I'd see what people thought without being fed talking points.
Yet that is not what happened. it was decisively voted on party lines.
I'm guessing the Republicans opposed it and the Democrats supported it. I believe the Democrats have a 51-49 majority in the Senate so I'd guess Manchin and Sinema voted against it.
“(a) Offense.—It shall be unlawful for an owner, officer, attorney, or incorporation agent of a corporation, company, or other entity to establish or use the corporation, company, or other entity with the intent to conceal an activity of a foreign national (as defined in section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121)) prohibited under such section 319.Text - S.443 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): DISCLOSE Act of 2021
Text for S.443 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): DISCLOSE Act of 2021www.congress.gov
It sounds like we both agree on increasing the penalty and we both probably want to increase the jail time/ penalty. We just need to decide where to“(a) Offense.—It shall be unlawful for an owner, officer, attorney, or incorporation agent of a corporation, company, or other entity to establish or use the corporation, company, or other entity with the intent to conceal an activity of a foreign national (as defined in section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121)) prohibited under such section 319.Text - S.443 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): DISCLOSE Act of 2021
Text for S.443 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): DISCLOSE Act of 2021www.congress.gov
“(b) Penalty.—Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or both.”
A punishment range of cash fine to 5 years imprisonment seems like it would allow for too much corruption. I would like to see a 2 year minimum and 20 year max. This still allows the judge to exercise some discretion and it respects the seriousness of the violation.
What do you mean by drawing the line? I know very little about the current campaign contribution rules. I think there should be no foreign money allowed. Only contributions from United States citizens, as individuals. Not even companies should be allowed to contribute, nor should PACs be formed. If the individuals within a company or the individuals within a group feel strongly about a candidate, they can contribute as individuals.It sounds like we both agree on increasing the penalty and we both probably want to increase the jail time/ penalty. We just need to decide where to“(a) Offense.—It shall be unlawful for an owner, officer, attorney, or incorporation agent of a corporation, company, or other entity to establish or use the corporation, company, or other entity with the intent to conceal an activity of a foreign national (as defined in section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121)) prohibited under such section 319.Text - S.443 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): DISCLOSE Act of 2021
Text for S.443 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): DISCLOSE Act of 2021www.congress.gov
“(b) Penalty.—Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or both.”
A punishment range of cash fine to 5 years imprisonment seems like it would allow for too much corruption. I would like to see a 2 year minimum and 20 year max. This still allows the judge to exercise some discretion and it respects the seriousness of the violation.
Where should the line be drawn?
I strongly agree.
Officially, Democrats have a 51-50 majority (counting Harris). I suspect, however, that there wasn't a vote on passing the legislation, but rather a cloture vote to end the filibuster, which would require 60 votes (not including Harris). A party line vote would defeat a cloture vote every time if either party voted against cloture.
I'm not sure that any of them would try in the current PSF, but we used to have conservatives that gave rather thought-provoking arguments that money was the ultimate in free speech. When you put limits on putting "your money where your mouth is" you are violating the first amendment. In this case when exposing otherwise anonymous "speech" simply because more dollars means a bigger megaphone.
reason.com
I'm pretty onboard with this too. Our government stopped being "of the people, by the people" when the largest donors became corporations and special interests. It's farcical to expect elected leaders to bite the hand that feeds them, we don't have enough leaders with the moral fortitude to do that, it's become abundantly clear that we can't get them to do anything that reduces their chances of re-election, outside of a small handful that have an actual spine.What do you mean by drawing the line? I know very little about the current campaign contribution rules. I think there should be no foreign money allowed. Only contributions from United States citizens, as individuals. Not even companies should be allowed to contribute, nor should PACs be formed. If the individuals within a company or the individuals within a group feel strongly about a candidate, they can contribute as individuals.It sounds like we both agree on increasing the penalty and we both probably want to increase the jail time/ penalty. We just need to decide where to“(a) Offense.—It shall be unlawful for an owner, officer, attorney, or incorporation agent of a corporation, company, or other entity to establish or use the corporation, company, or other entity with the intent to conceal an activity of a foreign national (as defined in section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121)) prohibited under such section 319.Text - S.443 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): DISCLOSE Act of 2021
Text for S.443 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): DISCLOSE Act of 2021www.congress.gov
“(b) Penalty.—Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or both.”
A punishment range of cash fine to 5 years imprisonment seems like it would allow for too much corruption. I would like to see a 2 year minimum and 20 year max. This still allows the judge to exercise some discretion and it respects the seriousness of the violation.
Where should the line be drawn?
I'm pretty onboard with this too. Our government stopped being "of the people, by the people" when the largest donors became corporations and special interests. It's farcical to expect elected leaders to bite the hand that feeds them, we don't have enough leaders with the moral fortitude to do that, it's become abundantly clear that we can't get them to do anything that reduces their chances of re-election, outside of a small handful that have an actual spine.What do you mean by drawing the line? I know very little about the current campaign contribution rules. I think there should be no foreign money allowed. Only contributions from United States citizens, as individuals. Not even companies should be allowed to contribute, nor should PACs be formed. If the individuals within a company or the individuals within a group feel strongly about a candidate, they can contribute as individuals.It sounds like we both agree on increasing the penalty and we both probably want to increase the jail time/ penalty. We just need to decide where to“(a) Offense.—It shall be unlawful for an owner, officer, attorney, or incorporation agent of a corporation, company, or other entity to establish or use the corporation, company, or other entity with the intent to conceal an activity of a foreign national (as defined in section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121)) prohibited under such section 319.Text - S.443 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): DISCLOSE Act of 2021
Text for S.443 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): DISCLOSE Act of 2021www.congress.gov
“(b) Penalty.—Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or both.”
A punishment range of cash fine to 5 years imprisonment seems like it would allow for too much corruption. I would like to see a 2 year minimum and 20 year max. This still allows the judge to exercise some discretion and it respects the seriousness of the violation.
Where should the line be drawn?
They'd be great too.I'm pretty onboard with this too. Our government stopped being "of the people, by the people" when the largest donors became corporations and special interests. It's farcical to expect elected leaders to bite the hand that feeds them, we don't have enough leaders with the moral fortitude to do that, it's become abundantly clear that we can't get them to do anything that reduces their chances of re-election, outside of a small handful that have an actual spine.What do you mean by drawing the line? I know very little about the current campaign contribution rules. I think there should be no foreign money allowed. Only contributions from United States citizens, as individuals. Not even companies should be allowed to contribute, nor should PACs be formed. If the individuals within a company or the individuals within a group feel strongly about a candidate, they can contribute as individuals.It sounds like we both agree on increasing the penalty and we both probably want to increase the jail time/ penalty. We just need to decide where to“(a) Offense.—It shall be unlawful for an owner, officer, attorney, or incorporation agent of a corporation, company, or other entity to establish or use the corporation, company, or other entity with the intent to conceal an activity of a foreign national (as defined in section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121)) prohibited under such section 319.Text - S.443 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): DISCLOSE Act of 2021
Text for S.443 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): DISCLOSE Act of 2021www.congress.gov
“(b) Penalty.—Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or both.”
A punishment range of cash fine to 5 years imprisonment seems like it would allow for too much corruption. I would like to see a 2 year minimum and 20 year max. This still allows the judge to exercise some discretion and it respects the seriousness of the violation.
Where should the line be drawn?
Term limits ASAP.
They'd be great too.I'm pretty onboard with this too. Our government stopped being "of the people, by the people" when the largest donors became corporations and special interests. It's farcical to expect elected leaders to bite the hand that feeds them, we don't have enough leaders with the moral fortitude to do that, it's become abundantly clear that we can't get them to do anything that reduces their chances of re-election, outside of a small handful that have an actual spine.What do you mean by drawing the line? I know very little about the current campaign contribution rules. I think there should be no foreign money allowed. Only contributions from United States citizens, as individuals. Not even companies should be allowed to contribute, nor should PACs be formed. If the individuals within a company or the individuals within a group feel strongly about a candidate, they can contribute as individuals.It sounds like we both agree on increasing the penalty and we both probably want to increase the jail time/ penalty. We just need to decide where to“(a) Offense.—It shall be unlawful for an owner, officer, attorney, or incorporation agent of a corporation, company, or other entity to establish or use the corporation, company, or other entity with the intent to conceal an activity of a foreign national (as defined in section 319 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (52 U.S.C. 30121)) prohibited under such section 319.Text - S.443 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): DISCLOSE Act of 2021
Text for S.443 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): DISCLOSE Act of 2021www.congress.gov
“(b) Penalty.—Any person who violates subsection (a) shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined under this title, or both.”
A punishment range of cash fine to 5 years imprisonment seems like it would allow for too much corruption. I would like to see a 2 year minimum and 20 year max. This still allows the judge to exercise some discretion and it respects the seriousness of the violation.
Where should the line be drawn?
Term limits ASAP.
I don't think I've ever bought an argument on this topic where anonymity was the rationale. We are a republic, "for the people, by the people". In my view, the anonymous nature of an incredibly large portion of support for politicians, bills, etc is a HUGE problem. I think it should all go away. If you're "afraid" to put your thoughts out there or let your support be known, that says something about your thoughts and support. If we remove that cover, maybe it will make people think more critically of their positions. There's nothing with attempting to raise the bar on discourse.Here is a very interesting article about this bill from Reason...on one hand it is easy to see why not being anonymous is a good thing, but this article brings up some excellent rebuttals to it...torn on this one as I see some merits, but I absolutely do not trust our current environment/culture not to abuse it as well.
Biden-backed DISCLOSE Act would dox donors to groups that run political ads
Joe Biden's latest anti–free speech crusade would require groups that run political ads to dox donors.
I don't think I've ever bought an argument on this topic where autonomy was the rationale. We are a republic, "for the people, by the people". In my view, the anonymous nature of an incredibly large portion of support for politicians, bills, etc is a HUGE problem. I think it should all go away. If you're "afraid" to put your thoughts out there or let your support be known, that says something about your thoughts and support. If we remove that cover, maybe it will make people think more critically of their positions. There's nothing with attempting to raise the bar on discourse.Here is a very interesting article about this bill from Reason...on one hand it is easy to see why not being anonymous is a good thing, but this article brings up some excellent rebuttals to it...torn on this one as I see some merits, but I absolutely do not trust our current environment/culture not to abuse it as well.
Biden-backed DISCLOSE Act would dox donors to groups that run political ads
Joe Biden's latest anti–free speech crusade would require groups that run political ads to dox donors.
I've held this position since before social media or any of that nonsense was even a thing. I have zero sympathy for those who aren't comfortable having differing opinions....that goes for the aggressors too. The quicker the current "political climate" is blown up, the better IMO. Anyone actively partaking in our MSM and SM platforms and putting value in them gets what they deserve. They created it, they can deal with itI don't think I've ever bought an argument on this topic where autonomy was the rationale. We are a republic, "for the people, by the people". In my view, the anonymous nature of an incredibly large portion of support for politicians, bills, etc is a HUGE problem. I think it should all go away. If you're "afraid" to put your thoughts out there or let your support be known, that says something about your thoughts and support. If we remove that cover, maybe it will make people think more critically of their positions. There's nothing with attempting to raise the bar on discourse.Here is a very interesting article about this bill from Reason...on one hand it is easy to see why not being anonymous is a good thing, but this article brings up some excellent rebuttals to it...torn on this one as I see some merits, but I absolutely do not trust our current environment/culture not to abuse it as well.
Biden-backed DISCLOSE Act would dox donors to groups that run political ads
Joe Biden's latest anti–free speech crusade would require groups that run political ads to dox donors.
Pretty condescending reply...in today's cancel culture climate if you don't see the potential for unintended consequences you are not being realistic.
I've held this position since before social media or any of that nonsense was even a thing. I have zero sympathy for those who aren't comfortable having differing opinions....that goes for the aggressors too. The quicker the current "political climate" is blown up, the better IMO. Anyone actively partaking in our MSM and SM platforms and putting value in them gets what they deserve. They created it, they can deal with itI don't think I've ever bought an argument on this topic where autonomy was the rationale. We are a republic, "for the people, by the people". In my view, the anonymous nature of an incredibly large portion of support for politicians, bills, etc is a HUGE problem. I think it should all go away. If you're "afraid" to put your thoughts out there or let your support be known, that says something about your thoughts and support. If we remove that cover, maybe it will make people think more critically of their positions. There's nothing with attempting to raise the bar on discourse.Here is a very interesting article about this bill from Reason...on one hand it is easy to see why not being anonymous is a good thing, but this article brings up some excellent rebuttals to it...torn on this one as I see some merits, but I absolutely do not trust our current environment/culture not to abuse it as well.
Biden-backed DISCLOSE Act would dox donors to groups that run political ads
Joe Biden's latest anti–free speech crusade would require groups that run political ads to dox donors.
Pretty condescending reply...in today's cancel culture climate if you don't see the potential for unintended consequences you are not being realistic.
Our republic will always be at its strongest when the message and messenger are both out there for evaluation and context.
I'll be SHOCKED if the outcome of this is, in any way, meaningfully different than the times this has been attempted in the past. And i'm willing to bet it's going to be significantly worse moving forward. The "sides" are shrinking in number and getting more and more extreme. The divisions are going to grow because the politicians are beholden to the "sides" and companies...that's where the money's at. This ONLY changes if we shed light on all the money flows and influencers. There's no way around it. It sucks, but that's the bed that has been made.I've held this position since before social media or any of that nonsense was even a thing. I have zero sympathy for those who aren't comfortable having differing opinions....that goes for the aggressors too. The quicker the current "political climate" is blown up, the better IMO. Anyone actively partaking in our MSM and SM platforms and putting value in them gets what they deserve. They created it, they can deal with itI don't think I've ever bought an argument on this topic where autonomy was the rationale. We are a republic, "for the people, by the people". In my view, the anonymous nature of an incredibly large portion of support for politicians, bills, etc is a HUGE problem. I think it should all go away. If you're "afraid" to put your thoughts out there or let your support be known, that says something about your thoughts and support. If we remove that cover, maybe it will make people think more critically of their positions. There's nothing with attempting to raise the bar on discourse.Here is a very interesting article about this bill from Reason...on one hand it is easy to see why not being anonymous is a good thing, but this article brings up some excellent rebuttals to it...torn on this one as I see some merits, but I absolutely do not trust our current environment/culture not to abuse it as well.
Biden-backed DISCLOSE Act would dox donors to groups that run political ads
Joe Biden's latest anti–free speech crusade would require groups that run political ads to dox donors.
Pretty condescending reply...in today's cancel culture climate if you don't see the potential for unintended consequences you are not being realistic.
Our republic will always be at its strongest when the message and messenger are both out there for evaluation and context.
If you look at it that way you are correct...if you look at it with the potential for abuse not so much...hopefully our leaders look at all the potential unintended consequences, are not arrogant about it and/or want to use it for political purposes and figure out how to accomplish something here because the system is absolutely broke.
Like the Supreme Court, the ACLU believes that money given to political candidates should be regarded as a form of free speech.
I don't understand what does getting doxed by this bill and social media have to do with each other.I've held this position since before social media or any of that nonsense was even a thing. I have zero sympathy for those who aren't comfortable having differing opinions....that goes for the aggressors too. The quicker the current "political climate" is blown up, the better IMO. Anyone actively partaking in our MSM and SM platforms and putting value in them gets what they deserve. They created it, they can deal with itI don't think I've ever bought an argument on this topic where autonomy was the rationale. We are a republic, "for the people, by the people". In my view, the anonymous nature of an incredibly large portion of support for politicians, bills, etc is a HUGE problem. I think it should all go away. If you're "afraid" to put your thoughts out there or let your support be known, that says something about your thoughts and support. If we remove that cover, maybe it will make people think more critically of their positions. There's nothing with attempting to raise the bar on discourse.Here is a very interesting article about this bill from Reason...on one hand it is easy to see why not being anonymous is a good thing, but this article brings up some excellent rebuttals to it...torn on this one as I see some merits, but I absolutely do not trust our current environment/culture not to abuse it as well.
Biden-backed DISCLOSE Act would dox donors to groups that run political ads
Joe Biden's latest anti–free speech crusade would require groups that run political ads to dox donors.
Pretty condescending reply...in today's cancel culture climate if you don't see the potential for unintended consequences you are not being realistic.
Our republic will always be at its strongest when the message and messenger are both out there for evaluation and context.
speech
Exactly, best we can see who we disagree with and eradicate them.
This is a good question. Not sure to be honest, but the GIST seems to be that with this bill, the secrecy with which some people operate would be removed showing their true actions and some people, upon realizing who the individuals are pulling the strings, may retaliate against them if they don't approve of those actions.
Thats correct...and you can't see how that could occur?
I'll be SHOCKED if the outcome of this is, in any way, meaningfully different than the times this has been attempted in the past. And i'm willing to bet it's going to be significantly worse moving forward. The "sides" are shrinking in number and getting more and more extreme. The divisions are going to grow because the politicians are beholden to the "sides" and companies...that's where the money's at. This ONLY changes if we shed light on all the money flows and influencers. There's no way around it. It sucks, but that's the bed that has been made.I've held this position since before social media or any of that nonsense was even a thing. I have zero sympathy for those who aren't comfortable having differing opinions....that goes for the aggressors too. The quicker the current "political climate" is blown up, the better IMO. Anyone actively partaking in our MSM and SM platforms and putting value in them gets what they deserve. They created it, they can deal with itI don't think I've ever bought an argument on this topic where autonomy was the rationale. We are a republic, "for the people, by the people". In my view, the anonymous nature of an incredibly large portion of support for politicians, bills, etc is a HUGE problem. I think it should all go away. If you're "afraid" to put your thoughts out there or let your support be known, that says something about your thoughts and support. If we remove that cover, maybe it will make people think more critically of their positions. There's nothing with attempting to raise the bar on discourse.Here is a very interesting article about this bill from Reason...on one hand it is easy to see why not being anonymous is a good thing, but this article brings up some excellent rebuttals to it...torn on this one as I see some merits, but I absolutely do not trust our current environment/culture not to abuse it as well.
Biden-backed DISCLOSE Act would dox donors to groups that run political ads
Joe Biden's latest anti–free speech crusade would require groups that run political ads to dox donors.
Pretty condescending reply...in today's cancel culture climate if you don't see the potential for unintended consequences you are not being realistic.
Our republic will always be at its strongest when the message and messenger are both out there for evaluation and context.
If you look at it that way you are correct...if you look at it with the potential for abuse not so much...hopefully our leaders look at all the potential unintended consequences, are not arrogant about it and/or want to use it for political purposes and figure out how to accomplish something here because the system is absolutely broke.
I'll be SHOCKED if the outcome of this is, in any way, meaningfully different than the times this has been attempted in the past. And i'm willing to bet it's going to be significantly worse moving forward. The "sides" are shrinking in number and getting more and more extreme. The divisions are going to grow because the politicians are beholden to the "sides" and companies...that's where the money's at. This ONLY changes if we shed light on all the money flows and influencers. There's no way around it. It sucks, but that's the bed that has been made.I've held this position since before social media or any of that nonsense was even a thing. I have zero sympathy for those who aren't comfortable having differing opinions....that goes for the aggressors too. The quicker the current "political climate" is blown up, the better IMO. Anyone actively partaking in our MSM and SM platforms and putting value in them gets what they deserve. They created it, they can deal with itI don't think I've ever bought an argument on this topic where autonomy was the rationale. We are a republic, "for the people, by the people". In my view, the anonymous nature of an incredibly large portion of support for politicians, bills, etc is a HUGE problem. I think it should all go away. If you're "afraid" to put your thoughts out there or let your support be known, that says something about your thoughts and support. If we remove that cover, maybe it will make people think more critically of their positions. There's nothing with attempting to raise the bar on discourse.Here is a very interesting article about this bill from Reason...on one hand it is easy to see why not being anonymous is a good thing, but this article brings up some excellent rebuttals to it...torn on this one as I see some merits, but I absolutely do not trust our current environment/culture not to abuse it as well.
Biden-backed DISCLOSE Act would dox donors to groups that run political ads
Joe Biden's latest anti–free speech crusade would require groups that run political ads to dox donors.
Pretty condescending reply...in today's cancel culture climate if you don't see the potential for unintended consequences you are not being realistic.
Our republic will always be at its strongest when the message and messenger are both out there for evaluation and context.
If you look at it that way you are correct...if you look at it with the potential for abuse not so much...hopefully our leaders look at all the potential unintended consequences, are not arrogant about it and/or want to use it for political purposes and figure out how to accomplish something here because the system is absolutely broke.
I don't disagree but I think term limits are the answer...right now our political class is nothing more than legalized Mafia...they need $ and the people who invest in them own them more often than not...and that ownership can last decades...if they are not there for a long period there is less incentive to put $ into them or for the pols to need $...there has not been one congressman in the past 50 years that this country could not have lived without...if anything this country would be a better place without losers like Pelosi, McConnell or Ted Kennedy entrenched in power for as long as they were.
I'm not necessarily against term limits, but I don't see how term limits prevent special interest groups (whether corporations or other groups) from "buying" politicians. Either they buy the same guy 25 years in a row or they buy a new guy every few years, it's not really any different, is it?
I'll be SHOCKED if the outcome of this is, in any way, meaningfully different than the times this has been attempted in the past. And i'm willing to bet it's going to be significantly worse moving forward. The "sides" are shrinking in number and getting more and more extreme. The divisions are going to grow because the politicians are beholden to the "sides" and companies...that's where the money's at. This ONLY changes if we shed light on all the money flows and influencers. There's no way around it. It sucks, but that's the bed that has been made.I've held this position since before social media or any of that nonsense was even a thing. I have zero sympathy for those who aren't comfortable having differing opinions....that goes for the aggressors too. The quicker the current "political climate" is blown up, the better IMO. Anyone actively partaking in our MSM and SM platforms and putting value in them gets what they deserve. They created it, they can deal with itI don't think I've ever bought an argument on this topic where autonomy was the rationale. We are a republic, "for the people, by the people". In my view, the anonymous nature of an incredibly large portion of support for politicians, bills, etc is a HUGE problem. I think it should all go away. If you're "afraid" to put your thoughts out there or let your support be known, that says something about your thoughts and support. If we remove that cover, maybe it will make people think more critically of their positions. There's nothing with attempting to raise the bar on discourse.Here is a very interesting article about this bill from Reason...on one hand it is easy to see why not being anonymous is a good thing, but this article brings up some excellent rebuttals to it...torn on this one as I see some merits, but I absolutely do not trust our current environment/culture not to abuse it as well.
Biden-backed DISCLOSE Act would dox donors to groups that run political ads
Joe Biden's latest anti–free speech crusade would require groups that run political ads to dox donors.
Pretty condescending reply...in today's cancel culture climate if you don't see the potential for unintended consequences you are not being realistic.
Our republic will always be at its strongest when the message and messenger are both out there for evaluation and context.
If you look at it that way you are correct...if you look at it with the potential for abuse not so much...hopefully our leaders look at all the potential unintended consequences, are not arrogant about it and/or want to use it for political purposes and figure out how to accomplish something here because the system is absolutely broke.
I don't disagree but I think term limits are the answer...right now our political class is nothing more than legalized Mafia...they need $ and the people who invest in them own them more often than not...and that ownership can last decades...if they are not there for a long period there is less incentive to put $ into them or for the pols to need $...there has not been one congressman in the past 50 years that this country could not have lived without...if anything this country would be a better place without losers like Pelosi, McConnell or Ted Kennedy entrenched in power for as long as they were.
Politicians do have term limits. Voters just keep extending them.
If I was buying influence, I would think the newbies would fall in line a lot faster than the experienced pro.
