It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


57% Would Like to Replace Entire Congress

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 11:58 AM

57% Would Like to Replace Entire Congress


If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, just 25% of voters nationwide would keep the current batch of legislators.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans believe that when members of Congress meet with regulators and other government officials, they do so to help their friends and hurt their political opponents. Most believe that’s why politicians are able to solicit contributions from business leaders.
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 11:58 AM
This is coming from Rasmussen telephone polling of 1,000 Likely Voters conducted on August 27-28, 2009. The margin of sampling error for the survey is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence.

It's good to see that people are starting to actually be critical about actions of their elected officials.

(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 12:11 PM
I think that if a similar poll was done ten years ago, the same result would've come up. Unfortunately, if you got down to the nitty-gritty, the average American voter tends to think that their Senator/Representative is good and the rest are the bad ones. So, they continually vote for their guy instead of "voting for change".

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 04:19 PM
Voting for change in this country is “hoping that someone else does it first.” Personally I think that all government offices should have a two term limit maximum. I don't think our forefathers thought that anyone would make a career out of a elected position. But you will never get the thieves to vote that in.


posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 04:35 PM
I am all about an anti incumbent campaign.

Can you imagine the impact that would have all over the nation if something like this could be organized? No matter the party, vote them out even if it is going against your party line, get rid of them! This could shake the foundations of our government by reminding our elected officials they are just that...elected, and replaceable.

I don't know if it could ever work with the partisan crap here in the US, but if so...WOW

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 04:38 PM
Ask how many Americans are in favor of Congressional term limits. I'd wager those in favor are overwhelming.

Say, only 2 terms of service for any given candidate elected to either house of Congress — once they have served those 2 terms, they can never serve in the same capacity again. That is to say, they can never accrue enough power in a given office to be of any use to big-money lobbyists.

Sure, once they have served 2 terms in one office, they can run for another unrelated office — for example, a Representative can later run for a Senate seat, but he can never run for a Representative seat again. Likewise, a Senator can only serve in the Senate 2 terms, but never again in the Senate.

This would prevent the career politicians, the power-mongers — such as the Ted Kennedys or Robert Byrds or any of their kind — from ever accumulating the dirty power they so fervently seek.

It will also demand more participation from the American public in political affairs, so they aren't just blindly voting the same criminals into office repeatedly.

Congressional Term Limits. It's the Right Thing To Do.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 8/30/2009 by Doc Velocity]

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 04:42 PM

One reason for this attitude may be that most voters say they understand the health care legislation better than Congress. Just 22% think the legislature has a good understanding of the issue. Three-out-of-four (74%) trust their own economic judgment more than Congress’.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I think that Rasmussen was very selective in those they chose to poll. Clearly, they picked mostly idiots.

As the old saying goes:

Never try to teach a pig to sing
It wastes your time and annoys the pig

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Congressional Term Limits. It's the Right Thing To Do.

We have a term limiting process.

It's called voting.

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:10 PM
57% is still too low...Honestly- who in their right mind would approve of anyone in congress right now? These people are idiots- the congressmen and the sheeple that think they're doing an american well done job.

Chronies in office is and neve has been a good thing. These people control how our lives. We cannot support these people anymore.

Forget congress- flush out the entire government including any official/state job.

We need a full sweep, not just a flush out.

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 07:12 PM
I'm not sure on the idea of term limits. It sounds a nice idea, but one thing you do get from people having multiple terms is experience and knowledge, something we should hope for.

I think it would be better to attack the problems some other way, like much more transparency on lobbyist/business donations/meetings and other things of that nature.

If we could make it more obvious to average Joe which politicians are doing their jobs in the interest of the people and the country, then voting would work as it should, and incumbents who are sucking on the teet of corruption would go, but those who are working hard and getting better at it would stay.

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 07:22 PM
I wonder how many of those 57% would feel the same if everything was going better. Seems like people don't mind all the spending when life is good. I personally would fall among this group. But even in a good economy I would be lobbying to get rid of them.

I want my representatives to be delegates, not trustees in good times and bad times. I am tired of my Representatives voting based on what they think are best for me.

Usually when they do this, I am pretty sure that lobbyist are the ones telling my Reps what is good for me.


posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 08:09 PM
I have always thought term limits to be a good thing. Even though this probably places me in the minority, I would go so far as to prohibit family members from running for office.

Here is an example:

John Doe becomes a House of Representatives member, Senator and President. John has a daughter, a nephew and a brother with political aspirations. In our current system all 3 of the hypothetical family members could occupy the office once held by John Doe. I believe his family members should be prohibited from running for any office he previously held. That would hopefully stifle some of the political dynasty type families and give our citizens some much needed space. There is a lot to be said for name recognition and the role it plays in elections especially for higher offices. I know it wouldn't completely solve the problem, but it would have prevented Bush Jr from ever making it to President. At best my "limitations" wouldn't extend past 1st cousin and would only apply at the Federal level. Political families remind me too much of royalty which isn't healthy for this Republic in my opinion.

Any constructive feedback is more than welcome!

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 09:35 PM
Better then term limits would be to stop all elected politicians from taking ANY money from ANY special interest group.

This would stop the buying of offices and the paybacks that control the country.

Special interest groups steal the power from the voters by out paying them.

Groups like the teachers, prison guards unions, public employee unions, LA raza and the environmentalist movement run states like Calif not the voters.
they even control national politics with there money and influence.

This is why most people in the US pay large retirements to public employees
why when a majority of the people in the US believe global warming is BS but you get anti global warming laws that rob the taxpayer.

The special interest environmentalist groups have got laws on the book that don't clean up the environment but are written to drive companies and jobs overseas where the environmental damage is in another country but still may affect the US.

By driving jobs companies and overseas the money is no longer in the US to fight these groups.

There is also money from outside the US going to the politicians to vote on laws that directly damages the US.
George Soros is a prime example,

posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 09:40 PM
I wasn't in that poll, but add me in there too, get rid of the whole lot of them, save Ron Paul and a couple others.
Get rid of Obama while your at it, and all of his cronies.

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 11:36 AM

Originally posted by RoofMonkey
We have a term limiting process. It's called voting.

Wrong. Voting only puts the criminals into office, voting doesn't remove them from office.

Once these crooks reach high office, they couldn't care less about the people who elected them. Once elected, they make their "connections," receive bribes from lobbyists, and their re-election campaigns receive matching funds from the federal government itself.

How the hell do you think a Southern Democrat Klansman — Sen. Robert "White Nigger" Byrd (D/WV) — has managed to remain in the Senate for decades? And how does a shameless, rollicking drunk misogynist — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D/MASS) — remain in office for decades?

It doesn't speak well of voters who consistently re-elect murderers, drunks, rapists and klansmen, does it?

I have more faith in people than that. These crooks are not being re-elected; instead, they're buying the elections. They have the power, and they have the money, and they're crooked as hell — once they're voted into office, that's all they need. You couldn't extract them with a goddamned pick-axe.

That is where term limits come in. We limit the President to 2 terms, why not every member of Congress, as well? And, as long as we're limiting the Executive and Legislative Branches, we might as well limit terms on the Judiciary, also. Whoever dreamed up serving in the Supreme Court for life was out of his mind.

— Doc Velocity

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:34 PM
Well, the real question is, if the people who wanted this got their wish, that all of Congress was removed, who would they have in mind to replace each seat?

That's 100 seats in the Senate and 435 representatives in the House.

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 12:51 PM
Sure lets vote all the Republicans out... I'm Joking! I'm Joking! (Sorta, it's not like there is much of a difference in parties lately.)

I dunno if voting all of them out would fix things, personally I think we should chain them to their seats, hook up electro shock units (mild) and rig a computer network so if they annoy enough people, they get a jolt. (One per hour, not an endless stream LOL.)

I do wish they'd get off the 'get rid of Obama' attitude and focus on fixing the country.


posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 01:01 PM
reply to post by Moshpet

Heh, those kind of people can take a "Rush" stance.

He wants Obama to fail, BUT he doesn't want to see America fail.


posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 01:18 PM
The ultimate questions this brings up are:

1.) Would that 57% put their money where their mouth is and actually get off their lazy derrieres and go to the voting booth and vote (or drop their Mail-In Ballot off in the Mailbox)? Realistically, it is most probable that most of that 57% wouldn't. This poll represents the disenfranchised who are far less likely to bother to vote in the first place.

2.) So, who would that 57% rather have in Congress? The other Party? Someone with a different name who is going to resort to the same Business as usual, SNAFU? Every politician spouts the "Change" rhetoric. Every politician makes empty promises. What happens when they, just like those who are in Congress now, don't change anything and don't follow through on their promises? Maybe it's not the Members of Congress that are broke, but the entire Political System that is broke.

3.) Since when did Politics have to be "popular"? Sometimes the best decisions are going to be unpopular and have it's share of critics and opposition. The possibility of the United States entering WWII on the side of the Allies was horribly unpopular until Pearl Harbor, and even after Pearl Harbor there were still many who believed we chose to side with the wrong side. Politics isn't a Cult of Personality. Popular Vote isn't meant literally. Voting for our Congresspersons isn't supposed to be like voting for Class President in High School!

4.) Does that 57% disagree with EVERYTHING EVERY SINGLE Congressperson has done? Probably not! Do we have to agree 100% with every decision each person makes? Sorry, but our system of Government doesn't work that way. There is a certain level of Trust that is involved when we vote a candidate into Public Office. We trust in them to make the best informed decisions in the Public Interest. Sometimes we might not agree with every choice they have made, but you take the good with the bad. Likewise, we only get a decision over our State's Representatives and our 2 Senators. If you have an issue with some other State's Representatives and Senators, that's really none of your gosh-darn beeswax! You have to live with it, just as the people of that State have to live with your State's choice.

5.) In order to destroy, one must first replace (to paraphrase Caussidiere). If the majority of a small cross-section poll don't like all of the Congress, then the majority must come up with a better solution that will supposedly work better. You can't just throw out the baby with the bathwater. Give us a better solution that the majority of Americans can get behind. Offer a solution rather than ask to throw everyone out!

6.) "Kein Mitleid Für Die Mehrheit" or "No pity for the majority"! The majority voted these officials into office. The majority then carries the blame and shame for them. How convenient that the majority would whine and complain for the choices of the majority! The majority made their bed, now they have to sleep in it!

posted on Aug, 31 2009 @ 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Moshpet
I do wish they'd get off the 'get rid of Obama' attitude and focus on fixing the country.

Obama isn't the problem. Obama is amply demonstrating that he's unqualified to hold the office of president, and he'll get rid of himself in due course.

The problem is Congress, both houses of Congress, with their divisive partisan politics, their sloppy legislation, and their outright opposition to the will of the American people. I mean, damn, these "Town Hall Meetings" on Heathcare Reform have showcased everything that's wrong with the Congressional elite — when American citizens stand up, face-to-face, and rip these career politicians a new butthole, our esteemed Congressional leaders go running home to Washington, nursing their black eyes and bruised egos, calling it a conspiracy, the work of Nazis and worse.

In short, the Congressional elite are completely out-of-touch with America.

Make no mistake, I'm not pointing fingers only at the inept and bumbling Democrats — the Republicans pulled the same holier-than-thou routine during the so-called Immigration Reform debacle, and John McCain was the worst offender (next to that idiot Ted Kennedy).

So, no, I don't give a damn about Barack Hussein Obama. He's destroying his own political reputation just fine, all by himself. It's those clowns in Congress who pose the real threat to America and American liberty.

Of course, up until a few months ago, Obama was one of those Congressional clowns.

— Doc Velocity

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in