Is retaining your job more important than retaining your honor?

Is retaining your job more important than retaining your honor?

  • No

    Votes: 4 80.0%
  • Yes

    Votes: 1 20.0%

  • Total voters
    5
Jun 2013
17,037
14,534
Here
#31
Unfortunately to most politicians the answer is YES.

Vote for strict term limits......2 terms
Why vote for term limits? Why not vote in such a way that limits their time in office by voting them OUT of office (vote for someone else)? Term limits has to be something Congress votes on. Does someone here think the politicians they love to hate are going to pass what amounts to planned obsolescence for their political office careers?

There once was a time and there still remain people who vote for people based on the quality and weight of their character. Yes, we are all imperfect human beings, but generally people chose people as leaders and representatives, because their character is generally of a higher quality than most and because of that, the feeling is they may lead others to follow in their footsteps.

Now, some people seem to be cheering on diving to the bottom of the dumpster to find their candidate, while strangely, at the same time, holding their opponents to higher standards.

There is NO rhyme or reason anyone should have voted for Trump, based on having at the same time, given the reasons they did for why they would NOT vote for Clinton or had not voted for Obama.

We don't have to pass a law about term limits, all we need to do is get out and vote for someone else. I do see a reason for legislation, but the legislation has to be passed by those who will be limiting themselves, by it. Without legislation, people will have to informally agree to what is "long enough" and recognize that should a brilliant statesperson come along, they will also be subject to term limits. Another way to look at it is to say that if your candidate has won for multiple terms, there is a reason they won, considering a plurality of people in the community that want that representative. This pretty much describes what we are seeing now. People hate Congress in general and call for term limits, but them vote for the same people. We want to get rid of obstruction and gridlock, yet we keep voting in ways that almost guarantee them, claiming we won't back down and only want candidates who will also, never back down. Then we get angry when nothing gets done.
 
Likes: Spookycolt
Jun 2018
1,175
175
US
#32
Why vote for term limits? Why not vote in such a way that limits their time in office by voting them OUT of office (vote for someone else)? Term limits has to be something Congress votes on. Does someone here think the politicians they love to hate are going to pass what amounts to planned obsolescence for their political office careers?

There once was a time and there still remain people who vote for people based on the quality and weight of their character. Yes, we are all imperfect human beings, but generally people chose people as leaders and representatives, because their character is generally of a higher quality than most and because of that, the feeling is they may lead others to follow in their footsteps.

Now, some people seem to be cheering on diving to the bottom of the dumpster to find their candidate, while strangely, at the same time, holding their opponents to higher standards.

There is NO rhyme or reason anyone should have voted for Trump, based on having at the same time, given the reasons they did for why they would NOT vote for Clinton or had not voted for Obama.

We don't have to pass a law about term limits, all we need to do is get out and vote for someone else. I do see a reason for legislation, but the legislation has to be passed by those who will be limiting themselves, by it. Without legislation, people will have to informally agree to what is "long enough" and recognize that should a brilliant statesperson come along, they will also be subject to term limits. Another way to look at it is to say that if your candidate has won for multiple terms, there is a reason they won, considering a plurality of people in the community that want that representative. This pretty much describes what we are seeing now. People hate Congress in general and call for term limits, but them vote for the same people. We want to get rid of obstruction and gridlock, yet we keep voting in ways that almost guarantee them, claiming we won't back down and only want candidates who will also, never back down. Then we get angry when nothing gets done.
How do you do that when they are so powerful no one runs against them. Just saying

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
May 2012
64,663
12,248
By the wall
#33
I Understand where you are coming from but still would like to see it changed.

It might help with the partisan divide we have today.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Its actually going the other way.

Democrats have been pushing to repeal the 22nd amendment for a very long time now.

Even Harry Reid tried it.

And it won't help the partisan divide because its still the same constituents.

Even new representatives have to do what the people elected them to do whether they've been in there for 20 years or its their first year. What you are implying is that new people will go against the will of their constituents simply to work with the other side and that's not the way it works.

When you vote for a representative you are not only voting for them to represent your beliefs but to try and get things for you or your state.

Frankly the longer someone is in congress the more effective they become at that.

New people have zero power to do anything for you.

They aren't on any committee's, they don't have connections, they have not learned yet how the system works and how to operate effectively within it.

What you are going to have is a whole bunch of people getting on the job training.
 
May 2012
64,663
12,248
By the wall
#34
Yeah then you get those that sit there for decades and have no clue what the real world is any more.

Maybe they should have to use the common man's healthcare insurance that they imposed on us, maybe they would fix it.

Still think they are in to long.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
LOL no.

We elect them to lead our nation, they are in the line of succession.

They need to have excellent healthcare.

But you know you are more than welcome to run for office and join them.

Its not a bad gig actually.

Not something I would ever want to do but you might.
 
May 2012
64,663
12,248
By the wall
#35
Why vote for term limits? Why not vote in such a way that limits their time in office by voting them OUT of office (vote for someone else)? Term limits has to be something Congress votes on. Does someone here think the politicians they love to hate are going to pass what amounts to planned obsolescence for their political office careers?

There once was a time and there still remain people who vote for people based on the quality and weight of their character. Yes, we are all imperfect human beings, but generally people chose people as leaders and representatives, because their character is generally of a higher quality than most and because of that, the feeling is they may lead others to follow in their footsteps.

Now, some people seem to be cheering on diving to the bottom of the dumpster to find their candidate, while strangely, at the same time, holding their opponents to higher standards.

There is NO rhyme or reason anyone should have voted for Trump, based on having at the same time, given the reasons they did for why they would NOT vote for Clinton or had not voted for Obama.

We don't have to pass a law about term limits, all we need to do is get out and vote for someone else. I do see a reason for legislation, but the legislation has to be passed by those who will be limiting themselves, by it. Without legislation, people will have to informally agree to what is "long enough" and recognize that should a brilliant statesperson come along, they will also be subject to term limits. Another way to look at it is to say that if your candidate has won for multiple terms, there is a reason they won, considering a plurality of people in the community that want that representative. This pretty much describes what we are seeing now. People hate Congress in general and call for term limits, but them vote for the same people. We want to get rid of obstruction and gridlock, yet we keep voting in ways that almost guarantee them, claiming we won't back down and only want candidates who will also, never back down. Then we get angry when nothing gets done.
I would like this post twice if I could.

Very well said.
 
Jun 2013
17,037
14,534
Here
#36
How do you do that when they are so powerful no one runs against them. Just saying

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
You take a look at Russia and see that even Putin has people that run against him. Check out how many people (in his own party) ran against Trump and find someone to run against their power or it will ONLY get stronger and possibly remove ALL means to challenge their power, by removing voting rights and democracy, altogether. Staying at home and NOT voting or spreading votes across an array of opposing candidates, instead of uniting behind one, will NOT change anything and WILL allow those that are NOT defeated to continue to accumulate power, making it only HARDER to change things.

Here is an example of how a democracy, albeit a young one, troubled by having been defeated in war and a depression, was dissolved, and what helped the drive support for putting those in power who dissolved democracy and made themselves a "government" of one.

§ 1. Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. It is therefore permissible to restrict the rights of personal freedom [habeas corpus], freedom of (opinion) expression, including the freedom of the press, the freedom to organize and assemble, the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications. Warrants for House searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Reichstag Fire Decree - Wikipedia



Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich
The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:
Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government[12] of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.[13]

Article 2
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain unaffected.

Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.[14]

Article 4
Treaties of the Reich with foreign states, which relate to matters of Reich legislation, shall for the duration of the validity of these laws not require the consent of the legislative authorities. The Reich government shall enact the legislation necessary to implement these agreements.

Article 5
This law enters into force on the day of its proclamation. It expires on April 1, 1937; it expires furthermore if the present Reich government is replaced by another.
Articles 1 and 4 gave the government the right to draw up the budget and approve treaties without input from the Reichstag.
Enabling Act of 1933 - Wikipedia

I don't subscribe to communism, anymore than I subscribe to fascism OR One Party States

One-party state - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Unless someone has a better system in mind, with respect to allowing "the people" to choose their representatives, they may want to consider how important that right is and not let others be the ones that go to the voting booth and make the choices. If we don't like the current government, then reelecting the same people time and time again, makes no sense. That means either "we the people" are crazy, or the people we elect are. I think we need to decide what we want and be consistent. As it seems to be now, many of us seem to be for the things we don't want and don't want the things we keep supporting.

I don't know about you, but having seen the destruction of war, I would rather solve problems via the system that the founders of this nation put in place and try to nip those who have sought and perhaps found the cracks in it to work toward a One Party State, in the bud. If "the people" really want a politician OUT of office, they need to find, support and unite behind someone that will defeat those they want to impose term limits on. It also does not make sense for everyone to hate Congress and want term limits, then continue to vote for the same people. We know what that's all about. We all want term limits on someone else's (the opposition's) Congressional members, but we want to keep our own. Until we change that attitude, why would members of Congress, change theirs or how on earth will the makeup of Congress change?

I would venture that what America needs is less fighting one another and politicking and MORE fighting of corruption, regardless of what political party, any of the corrupt belong to. Instead of bashing opposition party member for their corruption and giving members of one's own political party a free pass for corruption (ethical, moral or legally) go after corruption, no matter WHERE it occurs. Otherwise, we'll simply continue as we have, for eternity, because essentially we negate ANY values when we don't apply them to ourselves and our friends as well as anyone we deem to be our opposition or enemies, ESPECIALLY deeming them enemies and opponents BECAUSE of their corruptions.

Double standards seem to mean and in reality present, NO standards.
 
Last edited:

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
72,256
40,358
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
#37
I do not hold that term limits are necessary, for reasons @Spookycolt (in a rare moment of agreement) has essentially laid out. Elections are our term limits.

As to the more general question posed by the thread title ... as @Dangermouse stated, many people do not have a choice when it comes to a job. They would have to get another one before quitting the one they have, in order to ensure survival. I would note, though, that the problem is less that jobs inherently require surrendering one's honor, but rather certain individual bosses within an employer's organization who require it. And I have quit jobs to avoid behaving unethically. I solved the problem by being self-employed. However, getting health care through the VA allows me to do without a payroll job that has employer-sponsored health care (pre-existing conditions might price me out, and certainly would be more than I would want to spend).
 
Aug 2018
1,385
2,185
Vancouver
#39
Here’s the thing.

My personal honour is more important than any job.

But.

Supporting and providing for my family IS more important than my honour. It is.

I’d crawl through shit naked while the town threw tomatoes at me and laughed, if it’s what I had to do to keep my kids fed, warm, and satisfied.

And that means I need my job.

So in the end, because I need my job to support my family, in a backwards way, keeping my job IS more important than my honour.
 
Likes: Dangermouse

Similar Discussions