Ryan & Term Limits

There risks of terms limits are far fewer than the risks of continuing to be governed by long term incumbents - aka, professional grifters.


The greatest risk is that it fundamentally changes the nature of our government because it sets a limit on the Will of The People. After a certain time, The People won't be able to vote for whomever they want and that's a dangerous concept to introduce into our Republic.

If you love the Constitution and the principles of self-government laid down in the Declaration of Independence, I don't see how you could support anything which disenfranchises The People.

And, before someone says it, I don't like Presidential term limits either. And, no, I wouldn't vote for Barack Obama again...unless the GOP put up another Mitt Romney type.
 
Over and over people say they are against incumbency and then vote overwhelmingly for the incumbent which leads me to believe that they aren't really against incumbency, they just want the other guys representative out. They're perfectly fine with their own.

I will echo another poster...we have term limits, they're called elections.
 
Over and over people say they are against incumbency and then vote overwhelmingly for the incumbent which leads me to believe that they aren't really against incumbency, they just want the other guys representative out. They're perfectly fine with their own.

I will echo another poster...we have term limits, they're called elections.

nothing you say isn't true and that's the problem, they KNOW people will vote for them no matter what...just maybe it's time to think of something else for them..
 
just maybe it's time to think of something else for them..


Oh! I didn't realize you're a closet liberal!

"It's for their own good." Or, "They're too old/young/uninformed/busy/whatever to figure it out themselves, so they need our help."

That's classic liberal, nanny-state thinking. :ack-1:
 
just maybe it's time to think of something else for them..


Oh! I didn't realize you're a closet liberal!

"It's for their own good." Or, "They're too old/young/uninformed/busy/whatever to figure it out themselves, so they need our help."

That's classic liberal, nanny-state thinking.
:ack-1:

well, glad to see you admit it.
I was referring to politicians and term limits when I said, them.
good grief
 
"People like term limits on other people's congressfolk" - paraphrase of sentiment

Let me correct that sentiment: MORONS like term limits on other people's congressfolk. Mine votes my way more often than not, but if there was some way to get the corporate toady kicked out, I'd do it today.

The bottom line is government needs cleaned out. Until pure, unadulterated scum took over government around 1980, pay was low enough to keep government self cleansing through turnover. Now the nation is <s>serviced</s>, er, uh, served, by hilariously overpaid lifers screwing up everything from Hicktown crosswalks to international treaty negotiations day in and day out.

People who don't like term limits helped make all that possible.

Enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Over and over people say they are against incumbency and then vote overwhelmingly for the incumbent which leads me to believe that they aren't really against incumbency, they just want the other guys representative out. They're perfectly fine with their own.

I will echo another poster...we have term limits, they're called elections.

as another pointed out, the incumbents have the $ advantage in their Primaries. Got to do something about the torrent of $ coming in that corrupts the process AND those involved.
 
Over and over people say they are against incumbency and then vote overwhelmingly for the incumbent which leads me to believe that they aren't really against incumbency, they just want the other guys representative out. They're perfectly fine with their own.

I will echo another poster...we have term limits, they're called elections.

nothing you say isn't true and that's the problem, they KNOW people will vote for them no matter what...just maybe it's time to think of something else for them..

First you say it isn't true and then you say it is?

Make up your mind.
 
Over and over people say they are against incumbency and then vote overwhelmingly for the incumbent which leads me to believe that they aren't really against incumbency, they just want the other guys representative out. They're perfectly fine with their own.

I will echo another poster...we have term limits, they're called elections.

nothing you say isn't true and that's the problem, they KNOW people will vote for them no matter what...just maybe it's time to think of something else for them..

First you say it isn't true and then you say it is?

Make up your mind.

If Seawytch understood what I meant, then that is all that matters dear..
now, your opinion on term limits or is this all you got?
 
We already have term limits. They're called....elections.


I understand that argument, but the playing field is not even. It's not even close to being even. In fact, there IS no freakin' playing field.

An incumbent can begin buying votes and influence from Day One in office. They can sell votes and influence from Day One. They can use their power and influence to fund-raise from Day One. And then, in the last year of their term, they can essentially just campaign and raise funds instead doing their fucking job. I could go on for about a week here, but the current system pisses me off, and I'm in a good mood right now.

.

Well said. I couldn't agree more.
 
Over and over people say they are against incumbency and then vote overwhelmingly for the incumbent which leads me to believe that they aren't really against incumbency, they just want the other guys representative out. They're perfectly fine with their own.

I will echo another poster...we have term limits, they're called elections.

as another pointed out, the incumbents have the $ advantage in their Primaries. Got to do something about the torrent of $ coming in that corrupts the process AND those involved.

I agree. I support public financing, I don't support term limits.
 
We already have term limits. They're called....elections.

I understand that argument, but the playing field is not even. It's not even close to being even. In fact, there IS no freakin' playing field.

An incumbent can begin buying votes and influence from Day One in office. They can sell votes and influence from Day One. They can use their power and influence to fund-raise from Day One. And then, in the last year of their term, they can essentially just campaign and raise funds instead doing their fucking job. I could go on for about a week here, but the current system pisses me off, and I'm in a good mood right now.

In the final analysis, a representative's constituents have one check on him: they can throw him out of office in the next election if they wish. A representative with a sense of self-preservation is more liable to respond to the sentiments of his constituents than one who is accountable to no one.

You bring up the pernicious influence of money and the deficiencies in our campaign finance system. But politicians respond to those incentives for the same reason they respond to their constituents' wishes--they want to win the next election and both of those factors make that more likely. There can be a tension between the money and the sentiment of one's constituents and maybe that's the problem you're identifying.

But if that's the case it doesn't make sense to me to propose eliminating the politician's sense of self-preservation and striping constituents of the one lever they have to influence him by instituting term limits. That sense of self-preservation--thinking forward to the next election--may make him susceptible to campaign finance chicanery but it's also what makes him responsive to his constituents. If the money is the problem, then go after the money.

It's possible that's not what you mean and politicians should be freer to be more independent of influence from their voters/constituents, too. In which case the accountability of an election actually is a negative. And there's an argument to be made there that the people (via their active political interest and participation) are the problem. If that's the argument, then term limits probably would be a good idea.
 
.

1. Strict, short term limits
2. Balanced Budget Amendment
3. Publicly-funded elections

Take the power away from those who abuse it most.

.

There's good arguments on both sides for ideas 1 and 2... and I'd prolly lean towards bein' for rather than bein' against 'em...

but publicly-funded elections is flat-out a bad idea... but I would be for absolute transparency regarding where the money is coming from...

The GOP make sure that will never happen. If it was, it would reveal that virtually all their funds are from their corporate shills and overseas, they would never win an election.
 
Given the fact that voter fraud played a huge part in the last 2 elections, I support term limits.


It did? A "huge part?"

Show me.
Funny that Obama won all the states with no voter i.d. laws, and lost the ones that have them. There were districts in all of the battleground states that Obama won 100% of the vote (a statistical impossibility), and many districts where there were more votes cast than there were eligible voters. Articles: Was the 2012 Election Stolen?
 
Given the fact that voter fraud played a huge part in the last 2 elections, I support term limits.


It did? A "huge part?"

Show me.

You can probably find the evidence at the creation museum in KY where they have the evidence that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and dinosaurs and humans lived in peace side by side until Man's fall from grace.
 
No senator should be allowed to "serve" more than two terms. That is actually four more years than what is allowed by law for a President to serve.

No member of the House should be able to "serve" more than four terms. That is exactly the length of time a President is allowed to serve under the current law.

Any and all Congressmen/women and Senators who seek re-election after those years are nothing but power-hungry, incompetent, egotistical and despicable weasels of the highest degree.

If you want to see dried out, pathetic, long-past-best-before jerks like Harry Reid, Charlie Rangel, Mitch McConnell and Howard Dean, just to mention a few of those whose worth has expired before the beginning of this century, go ahead and support these prune-faced anachronisms.

But then don't complain if they make laws you don't like.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top