And we keep voting for these people!

link another link

So, does anyone else find it repulsive that 20% of Congress are using their recess to not head home to their districts and face the people they supposedly represent, but rather have chosen (some would say have been coerced) to take an all expenses paid trip to Israel. That's right, the trip is funded by Israel's lobbyist group. A read that a good number of these 81 are freshmen and that according to one anonymous staffer they really had no choice but to accept the 'invitation' to go and get their indoctrination, because if the did not accept the lobby group threatened to label them anti-Israel and make sure that they would not be re-elected.

I haven't seen the full list of who took part in this, but I'll post it when I do. If one of them is your representative, I encourage you to write them and ask for an explanation and voice your displeasure. Don't forget this next time their seat is up for re-election.

I don't see how this is not illegal for them to accept this trip. Other government employees have to follow a strict set of ethics rules, and I would like to think that this would violate them.

Freshman=Tea-Party?

In reply to T.J.:

I think more and more Americans are waking up to the truth of how politics REALLY works and, as you say, are becoming repulsed, by what they see. More and more people are speaking out about it. Maybe I shouldn't allow it to affect me like this, but for the most part I don't even bother to vote anymore because there is seldom anyone who runs for election that I have any trust in whatsoever. It appears to me that the higher political offices in the country seem to attract a type of personality that I can't stand to even be around. If their motivations were really known no one would vote for them. The problem is that the system is set up ,as you pointed out, so that anyone who really gives a E36 M3 about this courntry can't be elected.

In reply to Joshua:

Yep, I figure a good many of them are tea party types. I doubt they were elected to serve the wants and needs of a foreign country. I'm thinking they got elected to try to fix problems here.

I can't (so far) find a list of the 81. Other than the leadership articles about this just give a break down by party, but not names. I guess they must be real proud of their actions, so much that they made sure that they can remain hidden.

I think voter apathy is a bigger problem than the politicians' abuse of the system. You've got to fix the first problem before you can fix the second.

I think a major problem is your campaigning practices down there (the length and the money involved). It probably keeps a lot of good people out of the system. I don't mind our politicians up here most of the time, then again, some of your states elect crazies!

Joshua wrote: Freshman=Tea-Party?

Freshmen= ANY Party members that were recently elected.

I agree that the length of time needed to elect anybody is a BIG turnoff. I worked in Broadcasting, I HATED whenever election season rolled around.

While I know we will never get a viable third party.. how about being able to cast of vote of "no-confidence" on your representative? I bet that would make a lot of them appear to be more in touch.

We will have a 3rd party when (and if) the American people want a 3rd party. The two ruling parties have made so many laws to keep it to just the two of them, that it is even hard for 3rd party peeps to get on the ballot. We have the power, but we fail to use it.

President Obama traveled to 23 different countries in his first year in office (most of any President). He has hit 40 now. He often travels with 2 completely separate entourages (one for the First Lady).

Every one of those trips was an attempt by someone to influence someone.

Politicians travel. Politicians pedal influence.

That's their job.

T.J. wrote: We will have a 3rd party when (and if) the American people want a 3rd party. The two ruling parties have made so many laws to keep it to just the two of them, that it is even hard for 3rd party peeps to get on the ballot. We have the power, but we fail to use it.

Not really. The Electoral college doesn't allow for a third party and since they are the ones that actually do the voting that counts that's the limiting factor.

But since there's really no need for the electoral college anymore the first step is to get rid of them.

carguy123 wrote: But since there's really no need for the electoral college anymore the first step is to get rid of them.

Before abolishing the electoral college, you must have a damn better system to take its' place.

Pro's and con's outlined here: http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_procon.php

from the article: A direct popular election of the president would likely have the opposite effect. For in a direct popular election, there would be every incentive for a multitude of minor parties to form in an attempt to prevent whatever popular majority might be necessary to elect a president. The surviving candidates would thus be drawn to the regionalist or extremist views represented by these parties in hopes of winning the run-off election. The result of a direct popular election for president, then, would likely be frayed and unstable political system characterized by a multitude of political parties and by more radical changes in policies from one administration to the next. The Electoral College system, in contrast, encourages political parties to coalesce divergent interests into two sets of coherent alternatives. Such an organization of social conflict and political debate contributes to the political stability of the nation.

Propaganda from the powers that be.

If we actually could elect the pres. I think you'd find a lot more people interested in voting. How many times have you seen people say on here they don't vote because they don't think their vote matters?

In the beginning . . . there was a need for the college because travel times and voting procedures required it. That's no longer the case.

And the college guarantees us just 2 parties filled with the same bozos in power. This last presidential election the press was full of college members saying they didn't care how the public voted they were going to vote for X. That makes me want to vote and then lynch someone!

carguy123 wrote: How many times have you seen people say on here they don't vote because they don't think their vote matters?

Far too many.

Which suggests "those people" are more the source of the problem than the electoral college.

If you don't feel your vote matters then I suggest it's the system moreso than the people. Although it seems the people who refuse to vote are the ones that complain the loudest.

It's their fault for not voting.

In reply to carguy123:

Nice to see you've accepted my point.

Sorry, carguy123. I can't agree.

I've lived in a country with direct popular elections. It's a complete and total disaster.

Here's what happens... Influential people who are wanting their agenda moved forward influence large masses of sheople to push their agenda. There are many ways to do this. Financial reward, government benefits, promise of employment, brute force, etc.

The simple fact is that the "smart" and "responsible" people will always be hugely outnumbered by the "sheople".

So, the winners are the power brokers who can influence the most sheople.

There is NO SUCH THING as people "actually electing the president".

SVreX wrote: President Obama traveled to 23 different countries in his first year in office (most of any President). He has hit 40 now. He often travels with 2 completely separate entourages (one for the First Lady). Every one of those trips was an attempt by someone to influence someone. Politicians travel. Politicians pedal influence. That's their job.

When Obama travels it is not paid for by a foreign country. We pay for it. Big difference. He goes for his job. These creeps went while they were on a break from their job. Not on the government's dime, but all expenses paid for by a lobbyist group that represents a foreign country.

Part of the President's job is diplomacy so I do not begrudge him on international trips in general. A Congressman is elected to represent the people of his or her district, not to take special favors from foreign groups.

You have a very good point.

But are you sure ALL of President Obama's travels are covered by tax dollars? Were no lobbying or organization incentives included when he traveled to Copenhagen to lobby the International Olympic Committee on behalf of Chicago's bid for the 2016 summer games?

It was ALL paid for with tax dollars? Really?

I would wear that as a shirt!

TJ, I like this forum too much to say what I really want to and as being a young dude...

What do you mean "we"?

George Washington wrote: The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government. All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

In reply to SVreX:

No, I am not 100% sure, but he flies in a military plane that uses fuel paid for by the military. I sure hope that when the man stays at a motel overseas it is not on his dime. Maybe for the failed attempt at getting the Olympic games, the Olympic committee paid something....who knows. Either way, the US Olympic committee is not the same as a foreign government's lobby group.

moparman76_69 wrote: What do you mean "we"?

By we, I mean the American electorate as a whole.