I like the Bill of Rights. Especially the 10th Amendment which has been much
abused lately by the courts.
Republicans hold both houses and the presidency and have done nothing in the
first 100 days and are really not showing signs of doing anything other than
launch a few rockets and bombs and talk. Time to vote out any incumbent from
imp7big interests from outside Utah - not the same thing as federal
spending. your comparison is off base. But then, in another post you
said if the GOP nominates chaffetz, you'll vote for his opponent, who is
getting most of her funding from---- out of state. So - out of state funding for
GOP = bad, out of state funding for those with whom you agree = good. OK , I get
itshaunmore dems have been in favor of taking big money out of
politics. hahaha. yeah, how much did hilary outraise, outspend trump by? $1.2B
for hilary and $646MM for trump, according to bloomberg, almost 2-1 for hilary.
BO also outspent Romney. dems want to take big money out, yeah, riiight.
@2bits. Everyone knows every politician are bought and paid for.The
specific issue of this letter really shouldn't be partisan. This one is on
republicans. Other times it has been on democrats.However,
didn't you defend citizens united recently? At least more democrats have
been in favor of taking big money out of politics.
RE: " I refer not to the voters, of course, but to the special interests who
own these so-called public servants"...---Harry,I
wonder if you (or anybody) thinks Democrats are any not "owned" by
special interests?Could you point out a single politician (of any
party) who doesn't accept money from special interest groups?I
doubt you can. So then it becomes a matter of degree.It's not
black-or-white.It's not one is white as the driven snow, and
the other is black as coal.ALL Politicians accept funds from special
interests (every Democrat included).So I hope Democrats aren't
pretending to be on some high-horse when it comes to collecting funds for
campaigns. Especially if you were a Hillary Clinton fan. I mean you know about
the Clinton Foundation... right?So Clinton was also owned by special
interests. Maybe different special interests, but special interests just the
same. People, corporations, even foreign governments and foreign people who
gave money to her campaign and her foundation. Is she now "owned" by
them? Or does this "bought and owned" dogma only work when you talk
about Republicans accepting $$ for their campaigns?
The President's party usually looses seats in Congress in the mid-term
election. It happened to Barack Obama. Don't see it being different for
Trump. The question is... how many seats will his party lose? If he loses the
majority... will he be able to get anything on his agenda done?We as
voters seem to love a dysfunctional government. We vote for it.I
for one think it's a good thing for the President's party to not have
the majority in Congress. Keeps him in check (kinda what our founding fathers
intended when they designed a government full of checks on power).I
think it's interesting that we vote for it to be that way almost every
time, and then we complain.President and Congress being controlled
by different party's... is actually usually good for America. Slows things
down, and makes sure there has to be some "win" in it for both sides for
things to pass (which is a good thing). Encourages compromise and debate,
instead of strong arm tactics we get when one party controls Executive and
Legislative branches of government.Judicial branch should be
different. (Notice I said "SHOULD"). Theoretically they are neither
Utah's GOP politicians are always railing about "Federal Overreach"
and "State's Rights". The kicker is that they are mostly funded by
big interests from outside of Utah. The only Utahn's they are concerned
about is themselves and their cronies.