Pelosi and conflict of interest again

[Dunerking]

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/nancy-pelosi-husband-insider/2022/07/17/id/1079136/?ns_mail_uid=2115d696-0d30-4568-a49c-728e10082873&ns_mail_job=DM354776_07172022&s=acs&dkt_nbr=010102eeqt27

These fucking people never stop amazing me. Not sure how they aren’t called out for conflict of interest (which anytime I start a job I have to disclose if I have any)..yet these turds get around it like the electric vehicle bill that Brandon signed and they bought millions of dollars of stock before the bill,or the Bullet Train mess,or the credit card processing shit back years ago…fuck these people!

 

[DWC]

It’s crazy that this is still legal and than there are no term limits. Absolutely nuts.

 

[Dunerking]

It’s crazy that this is still legal and than there are no term limits. Absolutely nuts.

100% the problem…no reason that POS and her friends can stay in office for this long! Greedy fuckers!

 

[Hydroman55]

May they all rot in hell!

 

[bonesfab]

And you can bet they exempted themselves from the estate taxes also.

 

[WhatExit?]

It’s crazy that this is still legal and than there are no term limits. Absolutely nuts.

When the wolves (them) guard the hen house (our lives) you can be sure they'll take care of themselves first and foremost. Why would they ever impose term limits on themselves and their illegal, immoral and corrupt gravy train? They won't and haven't

 

[HNL2LHC]

And you can bet they exempted themselves from the estate taxes also.

If not they just raise the cut from 10% for the big guy to 15% or 20%

 

[LazyLavey]

PAY YOR FAIR SHARE.....

pay your share fair

pay your fair share

pay your fair share

 

[4Waters]

What does it take to get term limits on the ballot

 

[530RL]

What does it take to get term limits on the ballot

A constitutional amendment.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[4Waters]

A constitutional amendment.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Why do you need a constitutional ammendment to put it on the ballot.

BTW, thought term limits were already in place

 

[530RL]

Why do you need a constitutional ammendment to put it on the ballot.

BTW, thought term limits were already in place

For the federal offices of Senator and Representative the constitution addresses the term limit as 2 years for a Representative and 6 years for a Senator with no limit on the number of terms one can serve.

Some states enacted additional term limits relating to the number of terms for those federal offices and the SC rules in the above cited case that states were precluded from adopting more stringent term limits than outlined in the constitution.

So for states to legally set a limit on the number of terms a Federal Representative or Senator may serve, an amendment to the federal constitution would be necessary.

 

[4Waters]

For the federal offices of Senator and Representative the constitution addresses the term limit as 2 years for a Representative and 6 years for a Senator with no limit on the number of terms one can serve.

Some states enacted additional term limits relating to the number of terms for those federal offices and the SC rules in the above cited case that states were precluded from adopting more stringent term limits than outlined in the constitution.

So for states to legally set a limit on the number of terms a Federal Representative or Senator may serve, an amendment to the federal constitution would be necessary.

So that us not a term limit actually, should be 2 4yr terms and that's it hence term limit, as in limits the amount of terms

 

[530RL]

So that us not a term limit actually, should be 2 4yr terms and that's it hence term limit, as in limits the amount of terms

Both the years in a term as well as the number of terms are considered “term limits”.

In the case of presidency the constitution sets the term as four years and the 22nd amendment limits the President to two-four year terms. Prior to the 22nd amendment, FDR was elected to four terms.

The 22nd amendment could have addressed a limit on the number of terms for federal senators and representatives but it does not. So the constitution stands. A Senator term is limited to six years with no limitation on the number of terms one can serve. A representative is limited to a two year term with no limitation on the number of terms one can serve.

 

[4Waters]

Ok so how do you get term limits on the ballot, let the people of the United States speak. 5turdy doesn't want to answer because he loves people like pelosi and schumer

 

[WhatExit?]

We, the people, appear to have no ability to limit their power except to vote them out of office. I have never heard of getting any federal issues on a ballot and while I think it could be a good idea I've seen what California does with its ballot Propositions

 

[HALLETT BOY]

We are in a civil revolution right now , how long before it gets bloody ??

 

[Dunerking]

Well I think until we have fair voting and get rid of the mail in ballot nothing will change and elections can be swung in the directions those in power want it.

 

[530RL]

Ok so how do you get term limits on the ballot, let the people of the United States speak. 5turdy doesn't want to answer because he loves people like pelosi and schumer

I answered in post 10.

You must amend the US Constitution.

And you can help do so by getting your representative or senator to get behind this bill. But that will require getting rid of the filibuster to pass it.

S.J.Res.3 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve.

Summary of S.J.Res.3 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve.

www.congress.gov

 

[Xtrmwakeboarder]

I don't care if you are liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between. This is a MASSIVE issue. I'm sure these scumbags will always find ways around it, but there is no way a close family member should be able to directly profit from the decisions of a relative in this position. At least make it a little more difficult; this is blatant.

 

[Hydroman55]

What people forget…this behavior is not victimless, for every winner in the market someone lost money. It’s called cheating.

 

[Dunerking]

I don't care if you are liberal, conservative, or somewhere in between. This is a MASSIVE issue. I'm sure these scumbags will always find ways around it, but there is no way a close family member should be able to directly profit from the decisions of a relative in this position. At least make it a little more difficult; this is blatant.

And it’s been blatant with these two asshats more than a few times…I just can’t understand, like you said doesn’t matter what side you associated with that taxpayers are down for this.

 

[2Driver]

Even if they never bought stock, Pelosi and company running the country is a conflict of American’s interest

 

[spectra3279]

I answered in post 10.

You must amend the US Constitution.

And you can help do so by getting your representative or senator to get behind this bill. But that will require getting rid of the filibuster to pass it.

S.J.Res.3 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve.

Summary of S.J.Res.3 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve.

www.congress.gov

Do you really think these idiots will vote themselves a term limit? Even if you get enough states onboard to attempt a constitutional amendment? You really are a special kind of stupid.

Not a single one of these fucks would ever vote to end their gravy train. No "career" politician will ever stand for that

 

[Looking Glass]

Do you really think these idiots will vote themselves a term limit? Even if you get enough states onboard to attempt a constitutional amendment? You really are a special kind of stupid.

Not a single one of these fucks would ever vote to end their gravy train. No "career" politician will ever stand for that

BUT!!, they always can fall back on being a "Lobbyist"

 

[Sportin' Wood]

What does it take to get term limits on the ballot

They are already in place, it's called an election.

 

[4Waters]

They are already in place, it's called an election.

Nope, the president has term limits two 4 year terms

 

[Sportin' Wood]

Nope, the president has term limits two 4 year terms

I'm willing to debate why term limits won't work if you'all want a good argument? I think I may have a cold beer left.

 

[Sportin' Wood]

Let's start here, shall we?

California Term Limits​

https://lwvc.org/issues/california-term-limits

​

The California State Assembly members are limited to three terms ( 6 years) since 1996. The State Senate members are limited to two terms (8 years) since 1998. These term limits are lifetime, not consecutive. The Governor can serve two terms of four years, with a limit of two terms. This constitutional limitation was passed in November 1990.
In June 2012, term limits for California state legislators (Assembly and state Senate) were changed by the passage of Proposition 28. Newly elected members -- people elected to the legislature for the first time in 2012 or later -- will be subject to the new term limits. These rules are that they may serve a total of twelve years in either house, or a combination of the two houses. A person may serve all twelve years in either the Assembly or the Senate, or split between the two houses.
Those officials who have served terms prior to the passage of Proposition 28 will be subject to the old term limits rules. California State Assembly members have been limited to three terms (6 years) since 1996. State Senate members have been limited to two terms (8 years) since 1998. These term limits are lifetime, not consecutive.
The Governor and all other statewide officers except the Insurance Commissioner can serve two terms of four years, with a limit of two terms. This constitutional limitation was passed in November 1990.

 

[Dan Lorenze]

Nothing will happen to them....

 

[Sportin' Wood]

With a Supermajority, California Democrats Begin to Make Plans (Published 2012)

With a supermajority in the California Legislature, Democrats are both 100 percent in charge and apt to be held 100 percent accountable for any failures in the state government.

www.nytimes.com

I guess it's been 50 years since the Democrats have controlled the California Legislation and Term limits did not change a damn thing.


Let's be honest, what people mean when they say I want federal term limits is that what they really mean is that they want to see representatives from areas they have no election control over to somehow be influenced. We don't like Nancy so we want her out and we don't vote in her district.

I imagine that California benefits greatly from her position of power as Speaker of the House. What right does anyone have living in Kansas or Colorado, or Montana saying diddly squat about what people in the bay area want for a representative? My guess is they love her politics, and they keep voting for her as a result. I got plenty of ammo on this and I am extremely passionate about the subject, so I'm willing to fight the whole damn RDP community if Needed, but I will still drink beer with you and respect you. Term limits are a lazy solution to a problem that has long-term negative consequences you can't easily unwind.

 

[Hydroman55]

What a gig …become a multimillionaire, pampered, full reporting staff, pay for nothing and treated like a rock star.
Current liberals hate the country, all a bunch of egomaniacs addicted to the power, money and lifestyle selling out the country to maintain it.

 

[530RL]

Do you really think these idiots will vote themselves a term limit? Even if you get enough states onboard to attempt a constitutional amendment? You really are a special kind of stupid.

Not a single one of these fucks would ever vote to end their gravy train. No "career" politician will ever stand for that

Nope. Not at the federal level. Out of 11,000 amendments proposed to date, only 27 have been ratified. Fortunately.

As Sportinwood says, if you don’t like your representative or senator, vote them out. That was the intention of the founding fathers and I have not run across a better system yet.

What a gig …become a multimillionaire, pampered, full reporting staff, pay for nothing and treated like a rock star.
Current liberals hate the country, all a bunch of egomaniacs addicted to the power, money and lifestyle selling out the country to maintain it.

Who wants to be a senator or representative? You and your family to be endlessly attacked and their lives threatened by fellow citizens who disagree with your political beliefs while other citizens lack the decency to say knock it off on both sides. To be subject to personal attacks by other “leaders” including attacks on your family and your wives physical characteristics, by both sides. To be considered a traitor or a sell out by the “other” side simply because one is trying to do the best they can in what they honestly believe even though some may disagree with the best path forward?

No wonder we have a bunch of window lickers in Congress and leadership positions. Anyone with a brain and the necessary skill sets would take a fucking hot pass immediately.

We as Americans get what we deserve when we promote and cheer such a culture in America and in our civic behavior and discourse. The days of Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan working together with different political views for the country in a reasonable compromise where neither gets everything they want are long gone. And we voters have no one but ourselves to blame.

 

[MSum661]

Clowns to the left, Jokers to the right.

 

[spectra3279]

Nope. Not at the federal level. Out of 11,000 amendments proposed to date, only 27 have been ratified. Fortunately.

As Sportinwood says, if you don’t like your representative or senator, vote them out. That was the intention of the founding fathers and I have not run across a better system yet.


Who wants to be a senator or representative? You and your family to be endlessly attacked and their lives threatened by fellow citizens who disagree with your political beliefs while other citizens lack the decency to say knock it off on both sides. To be subject to personal attacks by other “leaders” including attacks on your family and your wives physical characteristics, by both sides. To be considered a traitor or a sell out by the “other” side simply because one is trying to do the best they can in what they honestly believe even though some may disagree with the best path forward?

No wonder we have a bunch of window lickers in Congress and leadership positions. Anyone with a brain and the necessary skill sets would take a fucking hot pass immediately.

We as Americans get what we deserve when we promote and cheer such a culture in America and in our civic behavior and discourse. The days of Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan working together with different political views for the country in a reasonable compromise where neither gets everything they want are long gone. And we voters have no one but ourselves to blame.

I don't trust anyone that wants to be in politics

 

[spectra3279]

BUT!!, they always can fall back on being a "Lobbyist"

Ban lobbyists

 

[Sportin' Wood]

Nope. Not at the federal level. Out of 11,000 amendments proposed to date, only 27 have been ratified. Fortunately.

As Sportinwood says, if you don’t like your representative or senator, vote them out. That was the intention of the founding fathers and I have not run across a better system yet.


Who wants to be a senator or representative? You and your family to be endlessly attacked and their lives threatened by fellow citizens who disagree with your political beliefs while other citizens lack the decency to say knock it off on both sides. To be subject to personal attacks by other “leaders” including attacks on your family and your wives physical characteristics, by both sides. To be considered a traitor or a sell out by the “other” side simply because one is trying to do the best they can in what they honestly believe even though some may disagree with the best path forward?

No wonder we have a bunch of window lickers in Congress and leadership positions. Anyone with a brain and the necessary skill sets would take a fucking hot pass immediately.

We as Americans get what we deserve when we promote and cheer such a culture in America and in our civic behavior and discourse. The days of Tip O’Neil and Ronald Reagan working together with different political views for the country in a reasonable compromise where neither gets everything they want are long gone. And we voters have no one but ourselves to blame.

I don't trust anyone that wants to be in politics

Clowns to the left, Jokers to the right.

Congress was never set up to be a career. We need statesmen, not politicians.

I've seriously considered working in politics. If and when I land somewhere, I will revisit this.

That song will be on my rally playlist.

I've been fortunate enough to have a taste of the game by working for a nonprofit trade association with lobbyists on retainer in California and DC. I doubt I could win an election, but FWIW if you serve a single term, you get benefits that rival our servicemen (and Servicewomen) for a shorter term, and if you're lucky no one shoots at you.

 

[coolchange]

Get Iris and track their trades for your own benefit.

 

[MSum661]

I've seriously considered working in politics. If and when I land somewhere, I will revisit this.

"That song will be on my rally playlist."

Remember me when you do. I'll run with you!
After 40 years in the same business as a sole proprietor around the Los Angeles area I'm ready for a career change.

 

[4Waters]

I'm willing to debate why term limits won't work if you'all want a good argument? I think I may have a cold beer left.

Well, what we have now is destroying America so how about we stop politicians from spending 40 years in the same office getting kickbacks from the same people that want to destroy America, every time new people get in they have to start from scratch and they can only do it for 8 years max. Guess you think what we have works great, check thread title.

Bye

 

[Sportin' Wood]

Well, what we have now is destroying America so how about we stop politicians from spending 40 years in the same office getting kickbacks from the same people that want to destroy America, every time new people get in they have to start from scratch and they can only do it for 8 years max. Guess you think what we have works great, check thread title.

Bye

I don't think what we have works great, I'm not a fan of the duopoly.

In California, they have term limits. Without a long-winded response, let me put it as straightforward as possible. The chief of staff becomes an extremely important person. They get handed from one elected official to the next. They don't have the same oversight, and they become an unelected policy maker. When I worked in that field, I was less interested in the elected person than the Chief of staff. Freshmen take time to build effective relationships but put a bunch of staff leadership in a room, and you can effect change.

I think that is a major problem and a bi-product people might not consider when calling for term limits.

 

[rivermobster]

Those are two massive piles of shit.

 

[DWC]

With a Supermajority, California Democrats Begin to Make Plans (Published 2012)

With a supermajority in the California Legislature, Democrats are both 100 percent in charge and apt to be held 100 percent accountable for any failures in the state government.

www.nytimes.com

I guess it's been 50 years since the Democrats have controlled the California Legislation and Term limits did not change a damn thing.


Let's be honest, what people mean when they say I want federal term limits is that what they really mean is that they want to see representatives from areas they have no election control over to somehow be influenced. We don't like Nancy so we want her out and we don't vote in her district.

I imagine that California benefits greatly from her position of power as Speaker of the House. What right does anyone have living in Kansas or Colorado, or Montana saying diddly squat about what people in the bay area want for a representative? My guess is they love her politics, and they keep voting for her as a result. I got plenty of ammo on this and I am extremely passionate about the subject, so I'm willing to fight the whole damn RDP community if Needed, but I will still drink beer with you and respect you. Term limits are a lazy solution to a problem that has long-term negative consequences you can't easily unwind.

530 liked it. That should say something.

 

[Todd Mohr]

I don't think what we have works great, I'm not a fan of the duopoly.

In California, they have term limits. Without a long-winded response, let me put it as straightforward as possible. The chief of staff becomes an extremely important person. They get handed from one elected official to the next. They don't have the same oversight, and they become an unelected policy maker. When I worked in that field, I was less interested in the elected person than the Chief of staff. Freshmen take time to build effective relationships but put a bunch of staff leadership in a room, and you can effect change.

I think that is a major problem and a bi-product people might not consider when calling for term limits.

Perfect example, Fauci

 

[TeamGreene]

Both the years in a term as well as the number of terms are considered “term limits”.

In the case of presidency the constitution sets the term as four years and the 22nd amendment limits the President to two-four year terms. Prior to the 22nd amendment, FDR was elected to four terms.

The 22nd amendment could have addressed a limit on the number of terms for federal senators and representatives but it does not. So the constitution stands. A Senator term is limited to six years with no limitation on the number of terms one can serve. A representative is limited to a two year term with no limitation on the number of terms one can serve.

And he was already on his last leg. ooops

 

[was thatguy]

You guys are funny.
Apparently the lessons of 2020 are forgotten already? 81,000,000 votes for a bumbling idiot in advanced stages of dementia, and his sucubus VP who couldn’t carry 1% of her home state of CA?
Yeah…OK…elections…lol

You guys do know that the stated goal of basically every globalist group is what they call “full spectrum dominion”…right?
Turdy knows what I’m taking about.

 

[Racey]

"Me and My wife never discuss stock trades" -Paul Pelosi

Case Closed.

 

[spectra3279]

I don't think what we have works great, I'm not a fan of the duopoly.

In California, they have term limits. Without a long-winded response, let me put it as straightforward as possible. The chief of staff becomes an extremely important person. They get handed from one elected official to the next. They don't have the same oversight, and they become an unelected policy maker. When I worked in that field, I was less interested in the elected person than the Chief of staff. Freshmen take time to build effective relationships but put a bunch of staff leadership in a room, and you can effect change.

I think that is a major problem and a bi-product people might not consider when calling for term limits.

How do you figure komifornia has term limits? Pelosi, Maxine wawa, fienstien have been there forever

 

[Looking Glass]

How do you figure komifornia has term limits? Pelosi, Maxine wawa, fienstien have been there forever

"Ho's in the Hood"

 

[Spudsbud]

That crusty buscuit is way past her expiration date.