Very odd idea. (might be offensive)

Post Reply New Topic

I personally think that after a politician's term is up, they receive an "exit vote" and the result would determine what happens next.

If they receive at least 2/3 of the vote they receive their full pension and any other retirement benefits.

If they receive a simple majority of the votes, they receive 3/4 of their pension, and no noncash retirement benefits.

If they receive less than 50% of the vote, then they are completely stripped of any pension.

If they receive less than 1/3 of the vote they are forced to pay back 80% of their politician's salary to the government

If they receive less than 10% of the vote, they are stripped of all assets and exiled from the US, if they refuse to leave they are imprisoned for life.

If they receive less than 1% of the vote, they are executed within 60 days of the vote being counted.

That should keep politicians honest.

When I read the wording of the US-Constitution regarding an impeachment (Art. II, Sec. 4: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.") it seen as a way of stopping a president of abusing his office. When we also consider the idea of an impeachment from English/British legal history, on which the US-Constitution is also based, impeachment was seen as a very last resort - no one would consider impeachment in England or the UK for a sexual affair of a civil servant or minister.

It would be, in my opinion, much easier to construct such a case against G. W. Bush; especially under the viewpoint, that international treaties are the "supreme Law of the Land" (Art. VI): Especially the 3rd Geneva Convention, via Art. 3 the Convention against Torture of 1973 and via Art. 36, sec. 1, lit. b, of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. But with a bit more time, the list will become much longer.

The US government is run by people whose motives are to get into office and stay there to do what they think is worthwhile, whether or not that consists of the well being of the nation. It is up to the voters to see to it that people are elected that have the proper motives in mind. If the main concern of the voters is to indulge in hypocrisy as to how people should conduct their personal lives the politicians will also at least present a public face of sponsoring that hypocrisy in order to remain active politically. A stupid and prejudiced public will endorse stupid and prejudiced policies and quite a few of the politicians endorsing the impeachment of Clinton had personal lives equally morally despicable. Throughout G.W.Bush's reign his policies were openly corrupt and stupid and vicious but he was elected and re-elected either despite or because of that, I cannot say. But the responsibility belongs with the American public. A nation controlled by idiots will have an idiotic government.

he didn't lie, he just didn't know that oral sex was also considered sex!

anyway, lying about blowjobs or not, it's still irrelevant to his competency as a leader of the free world. I really don't care what the leaders of the free world do with their cigars in their spare time, as long as they do their job and do it well

from my perspective, admitting that he didn't inhale his weed was a far bigger mistake

i can imagine him, hanging out with his hippie friends, with his cheeks balooned up, keeping the smoke in his mouth like a ret*d.
"mhh mhh *puuuh* thats some good s**t!"


i voted yes for castrate btw. but only cus it cracks me up to imagine politicians getting their junk removed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oophorectomy

Julius Caesar was going to be tried after his term in office, so he just used his governmental powers and some corruption to take the place over.

Eunuchs were tried a few times too, didn't do much to promote altruism.

I think the question isn't how to create an incorruptible government, but how to make one that does the right thing for corrupt reasons. Then we'd get really good government.

Adam Smith had the idea that the utilization of selfishness under competition would result in an ultimately productive and fair system. But that more or less assumes that there is some sort of limit to selfishness and the current situation in the USA with its pretty lousy educational, health, legal and environmental system indicates that selfishness is a wild mindless beast that seems not to be tamable.

Adam Smith set the condition that all player do understand their interest fully and are able to act according to rational analysis. If this doesn't work, because of lack of education, analysis or irrational believes, such a system will likely fail.

As history demonstrates over and over again the vaunted intelligence of the human species is seriously over rated.