When the FBI gets too big for its britches...

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Boadicea

1) People have to get involved in the civic process. It does no good to empower people with political power, if half or more are just going to sit back at home and let others do the work. When close to 1/2 the eligible voting population does not vote, that is the first and primary problem right there. All of this other stuff is secondary, if people are not willing to get involved in the civic process. They have to vote. Means that they have to think, and make decisions, and look things up. You want more power to the people that is the primary thing. A citizens grand jury, is fine, but if half the population is not willing to get involved, would it really matter?

I am all for educating, encouraging and empowering people to vote... I strongly and firmly believe that when people know better, they do better. So by all means, let's help people vote and vote wisely.

But I'm not freaked out by people not voting. One, it's a right to be exercised at our discretion; not mandated by law. Two, if folks don't care enough to learn about or understand the issues/candidates to be voted on, I don't really want them to vote. Garbage in, then garbage out.

2) I have heard it time and time again, it is time to put term limits on congress and all elected offices.

I don't have a problem with that. I consider it more of a precaution against the career self-enrichening political critters we have now, and it would certainly help the people's business if our critters weren't spending their time campaigning non-stop for the next election, rather than focusing on the business at hand. It would probably also help get more third party and independent candidates on ballots, breaking the two-party stranglehold. So term limits aren't a total fix, but it will help.

3) Make all elected positions have to write down why they voted for a bill, show their reasoning in writing, open for any and all to read and look at. The Judges, have to write down their reasons for why they ruled, so perhaps if congressmen were required, it would clear up much.

I like that very much. This reminds me of a congress critter -- I believe it was Matt Salmon -- who every year until he retired introduced a bill that would require all bills to explain its Constitutional Foundation. Even if that was simply the "necessary and proper" clause. It never passed.

I'd like to see both your idea and the Salmon bill pass. I like that very much. Not only will it tell the constituents exactly who their congress critter is, it will help educate the people and possibly expand everyone's thinking, and our approach to many problems.

originally posted by: donnydeevil
My how the right has changed their tune.

A year ago...

Black Americans make the claim law enforcement is corrupt.

The right: You're a disgrace, respect law enforcement

Now...

Rich White Americans make the claim law enforcement is corrupt

The right: You're right, down with law enforcement.

Wow. Someone's really REALLY stuck in that left-right paradigm. I didn't even mention left/right/Dem/Pub/liberal/progressive/purple-polka-dot in the OP...

So do you just want to dance and sing for all the glorious attention?

Or do you actually give a rats' patootie about the criminal corruption in law enforcement and want to make a worthy contribution to the subject?

'Cause this sure ain't a worthy contribution.

You should not use elected office to get rich. It skews your motives and disaligns your intentions with voter wishes.

a reply to: diggindirt

I fully disagree with your assessment.

Ghandi wanted the continent of India, to be self governing, for its people to decide how and in what direction that country should go and move, not to be under the yoke of oppression from a foreign power. He wanted his people to be equal under the laws that they were bound under, where it made those who were not English second class citizens, in short to throw off the chains of a government that did not represent them.

And Rev. King, he wanted the oppressed to be afforded the same rights as all other citizens, and the right to vote, in many instances in the south where Jim Crow was law, often would discourage those of African descent from voting, even having a say in who they wanted to represent them. They wanted to be the same as everyone else in the country.

Both men wanted people to be the same with the same fundamental rights and freedoms in their respective countries, including the right to be involved in the political process, where every person got a right to cast a vote.

a reply to: sdcigarpig
Nevermind...NWMT

Funny, many on the left for years have been trying to tell you conservatives about the FBI, but you didn’t listen.

Chickens come home too roost ?

Even though Trumps problems with the FBI are self-inflicted and he’s being greedy and ungreatful in this war since it was the FBI who gave him the election. He has no legitimate complaint against the FBI in the context of the election or the Russian probe.

Indeed some of it is politics and there are legit issues with Russia. Trump should just wait it out unless of course there's something he trying to hide in order to save his hide.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
You should not use elected office to get rich. It skews your motives and disaligns your intentions with voter wishes.

Trump didn't seem to "get THAT memo"...

a reply to: Willtell

Funny, many on the left for years have been trying to tell you conservatives about the FBI, but you didn’t listen.

And that's helpful how? Oh... right... not at all.

In fact, that kind of response is much of the problem... Even if true, that response only keeps the Dems and Pubs fighting each other over who thought the FBI was bad first or who thinks the FBI is worse or who thinks who in the FBI is worse or whatever silly partisan argument one can come up with.

Trump should be grateful? Nope. The FBI is sure grateful though that the people are so easily played into fighting each other instead of them -- even when you're fighting about them!!!

a reply to: DanteGaland

Trump didn't seem to "get THAT memo"...

Since he was already rich, I guess he didn't need to get THAT memo, eh?

But I get it. Can't actually discuss the topic at hand when there's a dig to get in at Trump, eh? Let the FBI bring the whole damn country down around our ears... but hey! You got to poke Trump on an anonymous board that he will probably never see much less hear about. Good job little buddy!!!

I think Obama spent the last 8 years weaponizing the IRS,FBI,DOJ,and God knows what else we're still finding out.
No deflection or spin will help the dems now..

originally posted by: TDawg61
I think Obama spent the last 8 years weaponizing the IRS,FBI,DOJ,and God knows what else we're still finding out.

I shudder to think what all Obama did -- and continues to do!

No deflection or spin will help the dems now..

Nope. But it's not going to help the Pubs who aided and abetted Team Obama either. And I don't just mean McCain (who will meet his ultimate judge soon enough). Obama had and has plenty of help from the "loyal opposition." And that's to be expected I suppose for a variety of reasons. From literal "Republicans" in name only, but also -- given the charges at hand -- I'm betting blackmail is one of the biggest. Trump isn't the first or the only one they spied on.