So why do people seem to think like "once the guy wins a couple times, we're just stuck with him forever ... there's nothing we can do!" ??

(11-28-2016 01:37 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 01:36 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Because then you give congress power over the Supreme Court, whose job really is to sort of keep them in line on behalf of the people. they can actually be impeached by congress, just like the President, but that has enough safety valves to keep it from being a political tool.

I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I'm saying I still don't understand why lifetime appointment is the thing that enables this.

Or perhaps, what if it was a limited term where they could not be impeached except by a 60 vote senate (so basically, has to really screw up)?

Well, I know from back in my college days, when researching it, that was specifically what was stated by the founding fathers when they wrote the constitution. That they felt they needed to basically be untouchable, so they would not be the obviously weakest of the three branches (they still mostly are, but this provision gives them more teeth). And they specifically did not want justices to have to worry about what their rulings may do to affect their job security once they leave office. If they never "have" to leave, unless they want to, it removes that obstacle.

Put it this way, let's take what both Trump and Clinton stated they wanted from the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade. Well let's say you have two justices who's term are coming up (And in this case they are much younger, because the current justices are mostly gone), and you now have two 60 year old justices with a year or so left. And a specific case comes up, where they could be the deciding vote. Based on what we know about both of those candidates, and how they are vindictive, you don't think it is possible an unfavorable decision could affect them in their next venture, which would likely be in Washington? Or vice versa, would it not be possible for someone to be enticed to vote a certain way, so that maybe they could get a cabinet position? Those are the things they wanted to eliminate.

Plus a two term President would have upwards of 8 justices he nominated on the court at one time. That would be another huge problem.

(11-28-2016 01:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Well, I know from back in my college days, when researching it, that was specifically what was stated by the founding fathers when they wrote the constitution. That they felt they needed to basically be untouchable, so they would not be the obviously weakest of the three branches (they still mostly are, but this provision gives them more teeth). And they specifically did not want justices to have to worry about what their rulings may do to affect their job security once they leave office. If they never "have" to leave, unless they want to, it removes that obstacle.

Put it this way, let's take what both Trump and Clinton stated they wanted from the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade. Well let's say you have two justices who's term are coming up (And in this case they are much younger, because the current justices are mostly gone), and you now have two 60 year old justices with a year or so left. And a specific case comes up, where they could be the deciding vote. Based on what we know about both of those candidates, and how they are vindictive, you don't think it is possible an unfavorable decision could affect them in their next venture, which would likely be in Washington? Or vice versa, would it not be possible for someone to be enticed to vote a certain way, so that maybe they could get a cabinet position? Those are the things they wanted to eliminate.

Plus a two term President would have upwards of 8 justices he nominated on the court at one time. That would be another huge problem.

Ok, now I'm on board.


I mean, you could still try to argue that the rule should be "they have to be at least 60 years old, and the appointment is 20 years long" ... but anyway, I get it.

Small trivia note, we also had one president who later became chief justice of the Supreme Court in William Howard Taft. Ironically he also appointed the most Supreme Court Justices, if you remove Washington (who had to fill a whole court) and FDR who served for 13 years, five years longer than any other President. I don't think he was ever in congress though, but I think he was governor of one or even two territories.

(11-28-2016 01:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So why do people seem to think like "once the guy wins a couple times, we're just stuck with him forever ... there's nothing we can do!" ??

They become money making machines for their re-election runs due to the influence they have both in their congressional body and become well known to the lobbyists.

It is amazing how much money must be raised for a $175K per year job. Unless someone very rich decides to become a Congressman/woman - to have enough funds to remain in office they all but have to sell their souls to the highest bidder........those donors don't "give" money without expecting something in return.

It's a vicious cycle that often puts re-election above what is in the best interests of the country.

(11-28-2016 12:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If only 15% of a district approve of the job the guy is doing, but then they vote for him ... what does that say about the people in the district??

Um, I'd say that they're Demon-crats.

(11-28-2016 02:13 PM)Crebman Wrote:  to have enough funds to remain in office they all but have to sell their souls to the highest bidder

I'm not really sure I buy this.

TV ads are a scam.

(11-28-2016 02:22 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  I'm not really sure I buy this.

TV ads are a scam.

The message in advertisements are often lost. Name recognition, is not. That is why you see some of the largest companies in the world, let's say companies who sell beer or soft drinks, or fast food, continue to advertise in mass (TV, radio, and print) at such a high rate. Name recognition is what their selling. Not the new flavor/promotion/sale they are having. Just making sure their name stays out.

That is actually the tactic Trump used. He literally went by the mantra that any press is good press (I don't really believe that, but he does and he won with it), and he won, in large part, because people were always talking about him.

I know me personally, I don't really always know who is running for the House. Especially on local elections. I tend to be influenced more by the names I recognize on those lower on the card, then their positions. So I'd say he has a valid point. It may not work for the President or Governor. Maybe not the Senate, where people pay more attention. But the lower hola, impressions win out.

Ad, when the people see that the only thing that comes out of the Libturd Media is slandering and bad talk about someone you have to know that there's a hidden agenda and with that most people will think on their own and say, "screw you" I'm voting for Trump. They saw that the only "negative" about Trump is that he has a dirty mouth and a dirty mind, welcome to human nature. I've been in the military and believe me a lot of guys including me then were "potty mouths" .

Then you read about her hiney-ness and how corrupt she is/was and that's a great improvement plus the fact that she has never had a "REAL" job. Her millions were amassed crookedly and even if "The Donald" may have had any bankruptcies it's all in the name of business. He's amassed billions the legal way, the way the government has let him the way most of us use it every tax day. If the government let's you because it's legal heck why not. That's how business is conducted.

But he didn't need ads to do that ... he got all the free press he ever needed! He would've got exactly the same results without spending a dime on TV ads.


No, political TV ads are the biggest outright fraud in the world. A racket that is unimaginable. They provably do nothing. People hate them, in fact, and mute the TV or change the channel. And yet, somehow, it is "known" that you must spend hundreds of millions on them to have a chance to win.

I'm sure the kickback that goes from the company buying the ads to the campaign manager has nothing to do with that.

(11-28-2016 02:44 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Ad, when the people see that the only thing that comes out of the Libturd Media is slandering and bad talk about someone you have to know that there's a hidden agenda and with that most people will think on their own and say, "screw you" I'm voting for Trump.

I will say this. You REALLY need to look up the history of the term "liberal media." It's origin and specifically who coined it and why, and who later popularized it. It's obviously a term you have parroted, but I can almost assure you that you don't know the origin, because again I can almost guarantee that if you did, you would never use the term again in any intelligent conversation. I highly suggest you doing so.

(11-28-2016 02:45 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  But he didn't need ads to do that ... he got all the free press he ever needed! He would've got exactly the same results without spending a dime on TV ads.

He spent very little on TV and radio ads. For just that reason. I just used his methodology to point out the effectiveness. Candidates for lesser offices don't get that kind of free publicity, so they must pay for it.

(11-28-2016 02:45 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  No, political TV ads are the biggest outright fraud in the world. A racket that is unimaginable. They provably do nothing.

You know candidates spend million of dollars to find out which type of advertisements and impressions are most effective. And quite frankly every single one of them disagrees with your statement. Every poll, every study, and method of tracking. They may not seem valuable to you, but by and large, that is simply not a true statement by any measurable metric.

(11-28-2016 02:51 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I will say this. You REALLY need to look up the history of the term "liberal media." It's origin and specifically who coined it and why, and who later popularized it. It's obviously a term you have parroted, but I can almost assure you that you don't know the origin, because again I can almost guarantee that if you did, you would never use the term again in any intelligent conversation. I highly suggest you doing so.

Why?

"Words build bridges into unexplored regions." -Adolph Hitler
"He who stops being better stops being good." -Oliver Cromwell
“The real strong have no need to prove it to the phonies.” - Charles Manson
"I believe in one thing only, the power of human will." -Stalin
"Better to live a day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep" -Mussolini
"Don't drink at all, don't smoke, you must exercise and eat vegetables and fruit." -Robert Mugabe

I realize many others have said similar, but my point is that 'the worst person in the world' probably still has some beliefs that we might all agree with and be true.

The term "liberal media" was created by a conservative think tank, who was upset that the then mostly objective media wasn't spreading their message enough. So they created their own new service, which was editorial based, novel at the time (roughly the 1950'a). As they had trouble getting the public to believe them or pay attention, they brainstormed how to both get more attention, and track their own appeal. So they created the term "the liberal media," as as way to discredit the fact based objective media of the day, and lend credence to their "real news," which was purposely agenda driven. And as their followers would start to talk about the "liberal media," which literally meant the objective media, they could track their influence.

The term wasn't really popularized until the 1970's though. Hats when Richard Nixon, defending himself against supposed allegations of wrongdoing regarding some hotel room breaking, blames on the lying "liberal media" who was out to get him. Then the term really took off with conservatives, for whom it was easier to blame the "liberal media" who was trying to take down their president. Of course once it was proved Nixon was lying his ass off, and resigned in shame, the term stick and the feeling of the media is out to get us remained. Even though it was mostly full of ****.

Now today media is more editorialized and more agenda driven, because that is what sells. But repeating the term liberal media, is quite literally and admission of being a sheep of the conservative mouthpieces. And since you had to ask, that means you didn't know the history of the term, and simply repeated it because others did.

(11-28-2016 05:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The term "liberal media" was created by a conservative think tank, who was upset that the then mostly objective media wasn't spreading their message enough. So they created their own new service, which was editorial based, novel at the time (roughly the 1950'a). As they had trouble getting the public to believe them or pay attention, they brainstormed how to both get more attention, and track their own appeal. So they created the term "the liberal media," as as way to discredit the fact based objective media of the day, and lend credence to their "real news," which was purposely agenda driven. And as their followers would start to talk about the "liberal media," which literally meant the objective media, they could track their influence.

The term wasn't really popularized until the 1970's though. Hats when Richard Nixon, defending himself against supposed allegations of wrongdoing regarding some hotel room breaking, blames on the lying "liberal media" who was out to get him. Then the term really took off with conservatives, for whom it was easier to blame the "liberal media" who was trying to take down their president. Of course once it was proved Nixon was lying his ass off, and resigned in shame, the term stick and the feeling of the media is out to get us remained. Even though it was mostly full of ****.

Now today media is more editorialized and more agenda driven, because that is what sells. But repeating the term liberal media, is quite literally and admission of being a sheep of the conservative mouthpieces. And since you had to ask, that means you didn't know the history of the term, and simply repeated it because others did.

And since you try and lump me into some group without any logical inference, you're simply trying to dismiss me because I disagree with your weak conclusion.

As I tried to demonstrate and it apparently went over your head, I don't care who coined a term... what I care about is whether or not it fits the evidence.

If the evidence supports the use of the phrase, then it has merit. OF COURSE the right is the source of 'the liberal media'. Hint, if the media ever turns decidedly conservative, you'll have ANOTHER impeached President and his 'vast right wing conspiracy' defense to point to as a source. Will that invalidate the claim?

Unless you don't want to take your doctor's advice because Robert Mugabe said the same thing??

I use the term because I see it in practice... MOSTLY because despite holding many 'liberal' viewpoints, it is demonstrably 'left' of me. Liberal or conservative is a relative, not absolute measure.

Sorry such things don't fit so easily into your dismissive nature.

(11-28-2016 05:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  The term "liberal media" was created by a conservative think tank,

Are you saying there is a better way identify a very liberal media other than "liberal media?"

We're all ears.

(11-28-2016 02:57 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Candidates for lesser offices don't get that kind of free publicity, so they must pay for it.

If only what they paid dearly for actually did something.

(11-28-2016 02:57 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  They may not seem valuable to you, but by and large, that is simply not a true statement by any measurable metric.

Can't find the guy I'm looking for, but heard him talk on the radio. Has a book, again sorry can't find it at the moment. Thought he was English, but not certain.

Anyway, he explained it no uncertain detail how political TV ads are a scam, and don't change peoples' minds.

(11-28-2016 05:19 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Now today media is more editorialized and more agenda driven, because that is what sells.

If by "more" you mean "totally", the yes. Except perhaps the local news, even then ...

(11-28-2016 01:36 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(11-28-2016 01:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I just can't imagine that if you've been at 'the same job' for 20 years that your heart is still in it.

Why wouldn't they vote the guy out, when they see that this has happened?

It's not like they watch these people do their jobs. They watch them (if they do) TELL people what they do. It's not like these people are sitting around watching debates and deliberations on CSPAN

Quote:Why will good options magically appear once the incumbent leaves?

Wow... you sound like guys arguing to keep their 3-9 coach.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'good' or 'magically'.

These people don't work for free.... and they generally earn more than the average American... MUCH more in fact (at the end of the day). I suspect that will act as a driver... In fact, I'm fairly convinced that the only thing that keeps SOME good people from running for some offices is the cost of challenging an incumbent with the advantage of the mini-bully pulpit in their districts and 'the machine'.

(11-28-2016 01:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So why do people seem to think like "once the guy wins a couple times, we're just stuck with him forever ... there's nothing we can do!" ??

NOTHING we can do is one of those 'always or never' comments. The fact is, regardless of your opinion on media/advertising, that lots of people vote for names they recognize down the ballot... and not their 'ideas'.

#draintheswamp

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(11-28-2016 01:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  So why do people seem to think like "once the guy wins a couple times, we're just stuck with him forever ... there's nothing we can do!" ??

90% of incumbents win. The longer they are in the job the easier it is to win. They are able to build up a war chest and get help from the party establishment with funding. They damn near have to commit some serious crime to lose.