POLL: Would you be for or against voting every single one of them out?

Do you support a national grassroots initiative to encourage voting out ALL incumbents?

  • Yes - Needs to happen now!

    Votes: 7 23.3%
  • Yes - What else have we got to lose?

    Votes: 6 20.0%
  • No - Some Congressmen and women deserve more time!

    Votes: 16 53.3%
  • No - I’m planning a super long political career and will consult with Lockheed Martin when I’m done

    Votes: 1 3.3%

  • Total voters
    30

LuciousBDragon

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 31, 2017
7,781
9,929
113
The American Southwest
Tell me why I’m wrong.

Proposal: Americans of all walks of life unite to ensure that no incumbent member of Congress is re-elected in 2022, 2024, and 2026. Remove every last member of the House and Senate over the next few election cycles until no one remains and there is all fresh blood. By 2026, the House would have already had a couple cycles where candidates realize when they run for office, it is for two years and two years only. If they want to make a big splash then they will have no choice but to work their asses off and reach across the aisle to get bipartisan support on a bill if they want it to move to a vote before they are out of office.

Candidates will have to run knowing they won’t be a career candidate who can sell themselves out to the highest bidder afterwards. They’ll all be alike so each member of the House will all be the same and only get their two years. Those who reach across the aisle might be the only ones who will get a name on a bill in that short period of time and make a name for themselves.

The excuse of congressman longevity being needed so they learn how Washington works is tired and overplayed. Washington isn’t working. Why would we want to encourage candidates to learn how to play professional political swamp and kick the can down the road?

Fire away!
 

Finance85

HR Legend
Oct 22, 2003
16,721
17,456
113
Only the Republicans who violated their oaths by failing to convict or supported and abetted Trump need to be removed.

Wait.... they took an oath that required they impeach and convict a sitting POTUS? Or someone who's already left office?

Which article of the Constitution required them to do that?

I'm challenging your rhetoric.

I would have voted yes as a Representative because Trump was still in office. I would have voted no as a Senator because Trump had left office. If Trump committed a crime, such as inciting a riot, he should be prosecuted.
 

Hoosierhawkeye

HR Legend
Sep 16, 2008
46,288
38,017
113
40
Wait.... they took an oath that required they impeach and convict a sitting POTUS? Or someone who's already left office?

Which article of the Constitution required them to do that?

I'm challenging your rhetoric.

I would have voted yes as a Representative because Trump was still in office. I would have voted no as a Senator because Trump had left office. If Trump committed a crime, such as inciting a riot, he should be prosecuted.

They took an oath to protect and defend the constitution. They have a former president who attempted an unconstitutional coup against the constitutional government. I would say punishing that man and preventing him from holding federal office again is the very definition of their oath to protect and defend the constitution.
 

BelemNole

HR Legend
Mar 29, 2002
31,502
65,156
113
Wait.... they took an oath that required they impeach and convict a sitting POTUS? Or someone who's already left office?

Which article of the Constitution required them to do that?

I'm challenging your rhetoric.

I would have voted yes as a Representative because Trump was still in office. I would have voted no as a Senator because Trump had left office. If Trump committed a crime, such as inciting a riot, he should be prosecuted.
You're playing the republican's games. You know that they could have started the trial while was in office if Mitch wouldn't have dismissed the senate. But he saw his out and took it, because republicans are cowards at heart.
 

IAHawk2011

HR All-American
Mar 18, 2010
3,804
8,190
113
Wait.... they took an oath that required they impeach and convict a sitting POTUS? Or someone who's already left office?

Which article of the Constitution required them to do that?

I'm challenging your rhetoric.

I would have voted yes as a Representative because Trump was still in office. I would have voted no as a Senator because Trump had left office. If Trump committed a crime, such as inciting a riot, he should be prosecuted.

That’s a total cop-out. Nothing in the Constitution says that impeachment is only supposed to be used for removal from office, or that an official can only be convicted if he/she is still in office.
 

JMNSHO

HR Heisman
Mar 11, 2010
7,492
7,425
113
This would be a dream come true for the most entrenched powerful special interests groups.

Why not just do away with the thin veneer of democracy altogether and let the corporate think tanks and other various types of revolving door bureaucrats do their governing out in the open?
 

Tom Paris

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2001
43,472
47,883
113
Tell me why I’m wrong.

Proposal: Americans of all walks of life unite to ensure that no incumbent member of Congress is re-elected in 2022, 2024, and 2026. Remove every last member of the House and Senate over the next few election cycles until no one remains and there is all fresh blood. By 2026, the House would have already had a couple cycles where candidates realize when they run for office, it is for two years and two years only. If they want to make a big splash then they will have no choice but to work their asses off and reach across the aisle to get bipartisan support on a bill if they want it to move to a vote before they are out of office.

Candidates will have to run knowing they won’t be a career candidate who can sell themselves out to the highest bidder afterwards. They’ll all be alike so each member of the House will all be the same and only get their two years. Those who reach across the aisle might be the only ones who will get a name on a bill in that short period of time and make a name for themselves.

The excuse of congressman longevity being needed so they learn how Washington works is tired and overplayed. Washington isn’t working. Why would we want to encourage candidates to learn how to play professional political swamp and kick the can down the road?

Fire away!
Anybody in longer than 15 years needs to go. Not to mention Cruz, Hawley, and any QAnon crazies. Out now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LuciousBDragon

LuciousBDragon

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Aug 31, 2017
7,781
9,929
113
The American Southwest
Unless I really like the incumbent, I pretty much always vote for the other guy/girl. But you can't do it blindly.
Could you support blindly voting everyone (up for re-election that year) out one time in 2022 to put the rest of them on notice? I would imagine the morning after voting day in Nov 2022 would have a different feeling. It would be interesting to see how the rest of them still in office react, no?
 

funksouljon

HR Heisman
Jan 26, 2004
5,523
6,869
113
COS, CO
Could you support blindly voting everyone (up for re-election that year) out one time in 2022 to put the rest of them on notice? I would imagine the morning after voting day in Nov 2022 would have a different feeling. It would be interesting to see how the rest of them still in office react, no?


No, because there always going to be exceptions. And if there were no "adults" in the room, it would be chaos on how to run Congress. All the knowledge would be gone. And there are a number of them who I think are still quality reps, even if they mostly exist on the D side now. I can't think of any occasion where I was voting for one of the exceptions when I was living / voting in VA, FL, GA, CO. I'd support @90% of them gone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman