What percentage of elected politicians do you think actually care about the people they represent?

[TNHarley]

10% or so.
But that doesnt mean they wont sell their integrity for party lines. Look at Bernie..

 

[rightwinger]

They care about their wealthy benefactors more than any of their constituents.

Which is why we need term limits.

Without a doubt, and on supreme court judges as well.

I think age restrictions would be more appropriate for SCOTUS. Mandatory age retirement at say 60 or 65. Unless you are close to the elderly you can easily miss illnesses that can have adverse effects of their mental faculties

I think Supreme Court Justices have shown they are effective well past 60 years

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think they all do in there own way
I think they WANT to do good

But their primary objective is to get re-elected
To get re-elected, they need to make concessions to their party

You are much less cynical than I would have hoped.

I can appreciate a leftist who is inherently cynical and suspicious of government and those in power.

 

[NightFox]

What percentage of elected politicians do you think actually care about the people they represent?

Probably a majority care...until they've been in office for 6 months, after that the system turns the vast majority into immoral miscreants that don't give a damn about anybody but themselves and their special interest pals.

We have a political system that takes in good, well-intentioned people and turns them into power-hungry, deceitful assholes.

 

[rightwinger]

I think they all do in there own way
I think they WANT to do good

But their primary objective is to get re-elected
To get re-elected, they need to make concessions to their party

You are much less cynical than I would have hoped.

I can appreciate a leftist who is inherently cynical and suspicious of government and those in power.

If I had to put a finger on it.....I would blame the media

The media has become much more partisan than it was 25 years ago
With the internet and cable news, politicians are instantly and ferociously attacked if they attempt bipartisanship

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think Supreme Court Justices have shown they are effective well past 60 years

True.

The job is really not that hard. They have clerks that do all the research and initial drafts of their opinions. Those people do all the real work and they are usually fresh out of law school or early career lawyers.

All the justices have to do is review their clerks' draft opinions, revise, ask for more research or clarity on particular points, show up at oral arguments, and ask questions (or don't, like Thomas. There is nothing wrong with that either. A well-written brief is the only way to win.).

 

[Hossfly]

Politicians may have had concern and good intentions when the threw their hat into the ring but that went under the bridge when they got in office and met their first lobbyist and special interest group. After those first meetings they sold their souls to the devil and that's when they learned the art of subterfuge, double-speak and downright dishonesty, among a plethora of sins.
In other words, the majority of politicians are lying, slimy scum of the earth. Term limits would insure that only dedicated people would run for election.So in essence a politician has just 3 goals in life and they are:

1. To be elected.
2. To get rich.
3. to be re-elected until they go on life support.

End of message
That is all

 

[mdk]

They care about their wealthy benefactors more than any of their constituents.

Which is why we need term limits.

Cruz introduced a constitutional amendment for term limits back in January. DeSantis did the very same in the House and neither have gone anywhere. Do you expect these people to build their own gallows? I don't.

 

[rightwinger]

I think Supreme Court Justices have shown they are effective well past 60 years

True.

The job is really not that hard. They have clerks that do all the research and initial drafts of their opinions. Those people do all the real work and they are usually fresh out of law school or early career lawyers.

All the justices have to do is review their clerks' draft opinions, revise, ask for more research or clarity on particular points, show up at oral arguments, and ask questions (or don't, like Thomas. There is nothing wrong with that either. A well-written brief is the only way to win.).

My impression of SCOTUS is that they have strong legal minds. Yes, they have top notch staff, but they still call the shots

That said, I would support a term limit of 25 years. That removes the temptation to appoint a Justice still in their 40s so you can fill the seat for a long time

But I don't agree with any age limit

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If I had to put a finger on it.....I would blame the media

The media has become much more partisan than it was 25 years ago
With the internet and cable news, politicians are instantly and ferociously attacked if they attempt bipartisanship

But, I would argue that a hostile media is healthy. When media fails to do its job, and is nothing more than a cheer-leading lapdog, we suffer.

I am always suspicious of anything bipartisan. It usually means they all got together and agreed to screw us from several different angles. One side signed off on a deal for pork spending or some other political favor, rather than agreeing that the action was in the best interest of the people, which exposes me as a constant contrarian. No action by congress is usually is better than anything they shove down our throats.

See my signature.

The DNC quite effectively used the "Party of 'NO'" talking point against the GOP in Obama's first term. Politicians are afraid of doing nothing, when much more likely than not, doing nothing is the best thing they can do.

I love the Party of No. I wish here was a "NO" party. Put together a political party based on the promise to do nothing but repeal the mountains of bullshit, and I would be a card carrying member.

 

[rightwinger]

I think most politicians enter office with a Mr Smith goes to Washington mindset. They want to do good, they want to pass meaningful legislation

But realities quickly set in and they realize they are owned by their party

 

[rightwinger]

If I had to put a finger on it.....I would blame the media

The media has become much more partisan than it was 25 years ago
With the internet and cable news, politicians are instantly and ferociously attacked if they attempt bipartisanship

But, I would argue that a hostile media is healthy. When media fails to do its job, and is nothing more than a cheer-leading lapdog, we suffer.

I am always suspicious of anything bipartisan. It usually means they all got together and agreed to screw us from several different angles. One side signed off on a deal for pork spending or some other political favor, rather than agreeing that the action was in the best interest of the people, which exposes me as a constant contrarian. No action by congress is usually is better than anything they shove down our throats.

See my signature.

The DNC quite effectively used the "Party of 'NO'" talking point against the GOP in Obama's first term. Politicians are afraid of doing nothing, when much more likely than not, doing nothing is the best thing they can do.

I love the Party of No. I wish here was a "NO" party. Put together a political party based on the promise to do nothing but repeal the mountains of bullshit, and I would be a card carrying member.

I disagree

I think that all politics is compromise The middle ground is where legislation is created

With strictly enforced partisanship. Compromise is a death sentence. A win/win solution is unacceptable because it allows the other guy to win also. Gridlock is preferred to compromise.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

My impression of SCOTUS is that they have strong legal minds. Yes, they have top notch staff, but they still call the shots

That said, I would support a term limit of 25 years. That removes the temptation to appoint a Justice still in their 40s so you can fill the seat for a long time

But I don't agree with any age limit

I could support that.

Often, it takes decades for a legal mind to develop (speaking from experience). Appointing a 40-something-year-old to the Court for the sole purpose of longevity is not the best practice, in my opinion. I also believe that 10 years of private practice should be a qualifying standard. A lawyer who goes from Court law clerk to magistrate to federal bench to SCOTUS has missed out on a very practical perspective that would shape the legal mind.

But I digress....

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

With strictly enforced partisanship. Compromise is a death sentence. A win/win solution is unacceptable because it allows the other guy to win also. Gridlock is preferred to compromise.

If I had a modicum of trust for any politician, compromise would be ideal. It seems that no matter what they do, we the people end up getting screwed and the special interest gets paid. So, I prefer gridlock.

 

[rightwinger]

With strictly enforced partisanship. Compromise is a death sentence. A win/win solution is unacceptable because it allows the other guy to win also. Gridlock is preferred to compromise.

If I had a modicum of trust for any politician, compromise would be ideal. It seems that no matter what they do, we the people end up getting screwed and the special interest gets paid. So, I prefer gridlock.

We have tried gridlock...it sucks
Congress is no longer a functioning entity

 

[Fueri]

I think 20% is pretty high but I'm thinking federal level.

I think like many things a lot of people may start out actually trying to get involved and maybe improve their communities.

by the time they get to the Big Game, and certainly after several years in DC I think 20% is pie in the sky.

I don't think these people give a single shit about anything but themselves, their power, their career and their personal wealth.

If I had to hang a number on it for that town I am under 5% and thinking 1-2% isn't out of the question.

 

[sartre play]

If I had to put a finger on it.....I would blame the media

The media has become much more partisan than it was 25 years ago
With the internet and cable news, politicians are instantly and ferociously attacked if they attempt bipartisanship

But, I would argue that a hostile media is healthy. When media fails to do its job, and is nothing more than a cheer-leading lapdog, we suffer.

I am always suspicious of anything bipartisan. It usually means they all got together and agreed to screw us from several different angles. One side signed off on a deal for pork spending or some other political favor, rather than agreeing that the action was in the best interest of the people, which exposes me as a constant contrarian. No action by congress is usually is better than anything they shove down our throats.

See my signature.

The DNC quite effectively used the "Party of 'NO'" talking point against the GOP in Obama's first term. Politicians are afraid of doing nothing, when much more likely than not, doing nothing is the best thing they can do.

I love the Party of No. I wish here was a "NO" party. Put together a political party based on the promise to do nothing but repeal the mountains of bullshit, and I would be a card carrying member.

I disagree

I think that all politics is compromise The middle ground is where legislation is created

With strictly enforced partisanship. Compromise is a death sentence. A win/win solution is unacceptable because it allows the other guy to win also. Gridlock is preferred to compromise.

 

[Moonglow]

If I had to take a guess I'd sad about 20%

What say you?

1%

 

[sartre play]

Go with post 32

 

[Weatherman2020]

0% care more for the citizens than getting re-elected. Trump may be the one anomaly but I think he is just on a joyride having fun yanking the strings of the left.