Term Limits.. it's time has come?

So...you should be the one to decide who goes into the Senate/Congress/Whitehouse?
If not you who?

You don't agree with democracy?

What's good about being ruled by the bottom 51% of the population?

Voting should b strictly limited to people who have demonstrated competence and responsibility.

:eusa_think: Would things be different if voting was limited to tax payers and retirees not on welfare?
 
term limits ....we have them...its called elections....the citizens vote etc.....why are you wanting to take this power out of the voters hands and turn more power over to the government? if you want to change term limits then you will have to change the entire way the senate functions on seniority...

I'm not all in or all out on this..I'm just considering the possibilities...

My view is that our government is dysfunctional.. their working less for the people and more for their re-election. Term limits may affect this...
The government is dysfunctional because of the two/one corporate Party system. We need a 3rd Party that represents the people.
 
So...you should be the one to decide who goes into the Senate/Congress/Whitehouse?
If not you who?

You don't agree with democracy?

What's good about being ruled by the bottom 51% of the population?

Voting should b strictly limited to people who have demonstrated competence and responsibility.
Well, that would eliminate your vote, so you may have a point there! :cuckoo:
 
I think people are getting plenty pissed with the House and Senate, heck with Government overall. Perhaps... it's time to review the possibilities...eh..

---------------------:eusa_think:


However, when the states ratified the Constitution (1787–88), several leading statesmen regarded the lack of mandatory limits to tenure as a dangerous defect, especially, they thought, as regards the Presidency and the Senate. Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of legal limits to tenure, together with certain other features of the Constitution, as "most highly and dangerously oligarchic."[8] Both Jefferson[9] and George Mason[10] advised limits on reelection to the Senate and to the Presidency, because said Mason, "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation." The historian Mercy Otis Warren, warned that "there is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well timed bribery, will probably be done...."[11]

Term limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree with this, but just this one last time I think we should vote for three terms as president.

Go Obama! 2008-2020! :)
 
So...you should be the one to decide who goes into the Senate/Congress/Whitehouse?
If not you who?

You don't agree with democracy?

What's good about being ruled by the bottom 51% of the population?

Voting should b strictly limited to people who have demonstrated competence and responsibility.

:eusa_think: Would things be different if voting was limited to tax payers and retirees not on welfare?

So no disabled votes? :eusa_whistle:
 
What's good about being ruled by the bottom 51% of the population?

Voting should b strictly limited to people who have demonstrated competence and responsibility.
Well, that would eliminate your vote, so you may have a point there! :cuckoo:

Yeah, right, as if you've covered yourself in glory in this forum. You're definitely in the top 5 when it comes to the most idiocies posted to the forum.
 
I could be wrong on a few points here as I am doing this from the best I can remember. And it;s been a long time since I've looked any of this up.

But as I remember the Senate was set up for 6 years so that there would be some form of continuity. That everyone wouldn't be re-elected at once.

The House was set up for 2 years so that a citizen could be elected come and do his/her duty and return home after 2 years to take care of their farm or business.

With this in mind:

I would not change the 6 year Senate term. But I would add a 3 or 4 term limit.

As for the House.....Wow, every 2 years they are running for re-election...Yes they remain in campaign mode constantly.

If it were up to me I would give the house a 4 year term, with elections not during a Presidential election year. And Again I would have a term limit of 5 or 6 terms.

But it isn't up to me, and as Mrs O says "If you ever became president I'd be a widow within 2 months." I have no choice but to agree with her.....
 
Where do you live?

New Zealand

I did not like your countries politics but I totally enjoyed your country and the people that I met during my 4 months in your country. I traveled (by air) from the north end of the north island to the south end of the south island, and spent a week or two in five of your cities. I also got the hang of driving on the other side of the road in New Zealand before I had to spend the next 5 months in Australia.

4 months is a good time to have a look around.
I would imagine that you'd find our politics incredibly left wing compared to what you come from.
 
What's good about being ruled by the bottom 51% of the population?

Voting should b strictly limited to people who have demonstrated competence and responsibility.

:eusa_think: Would things be different if voting was limited to tax payers and retirees not on welfare?

So no disabled votes? :eusa_whistle:

The disabled are like retirees - either they're collecting on their own work record and therefore 'tax payers' or they're collecting welfare.

Also of note: I'm not necessarily advocating this, it's just a line in the sand that CAN be drawn, although like any other line that CAN be drawn, this one doesn't guarantee competence or responsibility either.
 
What's good about being ruled by the bottom 51% of the population?

Voting should b strictly limited to people who have demonstrated competence and responsibility.
Well, that would eliminate your vote, so you may have a point there! :cuckoo:

Yeah, right, as if you've covered yourself in glory in this forum. You're definitely in the top 5 when it comes to the most idiocies posted to the forum.

Come on, Ed... :wtf:? Can you two get a room over at The Flame Zone Motel and let the grown-ups talk?
 
:eusa_think: Would things be different if voting was limited to tax payers and retirees not on welfare?

So no disabled votes? :eusa_whistle:

The disabled are like retirees - either they're collecting on their own work record and therefore 'tax payers' or they're collecting welfare.

Also of note: I'm not necessarily advocating this, it's just a line in the sand that CAN be drawn, although like any other line that CAN be drawn, this one doesn't guarantee competence or responsibility either.

How bout we only allow home owners and not renters to vote. (Then I think we could break it down to homes that only valued at ..hmm, 150k and above because those owners prove they are fine americans) I also think perhaps a test should be taken and passed prior to allowing them to vote as well?

Whatya think.. :eusa_shhh:
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top