Who supports term limits for Congress?

should Congress have term limites?

  • yes

    Votes: 31 79.5%
  • no

    Votes: 8 20.5%
  • don't know, I'm a dumb, dumb

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    39

Votto

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 2012
53,468
52,153
3,605
Should Congress have term limits? Congress imposed term limits on the Presidency citing corruption as the reason for this need after FDR broke the tradition of only two terms set by Washington.

"Politicians and diapers must be changed often.
And for the same reason."

Mark Twain
 
:desk:

Me!

The "argument", of course, is that "elections are term limits". This comically ignores the fact that incumbents have a massive advantage, both in terms of exposure and in building a multi-layered, long-term power base. The argument is silly and shallow.

There is nothing special about these people. And not even the most naive person can deny that politicians behave differently when they have to worry about fundraising and re-election.
.
 
Last edited:
:desk:

Me!

The "argument", of course, is that "elections are term limits". This comically ignores the fact that incumbents have a massive advantage, both in terms of exposure and in building a multi-layered, long-term power base. The argument is silly and shallow.

There is nothing special about these people. And not even the most naive person can deny that politicians don't behave differently when they have to worry about fundraising and re-election.
.


If you look at politician's as I do, they are nothing but whores. Whoring themselves out to the highest payer.
 
So if everyone is in agreement, as well over 80% of voters are, how do we make term limits a reality?

Congress makes the laws. They have no problem imposing term limits on others, but will never do this to themselves.

It seems to me that the Article V movement is the only way. States must rise up and amend the constitution independent of the federal government.
 
:desk:

Me!

The "argument", of course, is that "elections are term limits". This comically ignores the fact that incumbents have a massive advantage, both in terms of exposure and in building a multi-layered, long-term power base. The argument is silly and shallow.

There is nothing special about these people. And not even the most naive person can deny that politicians don't behave differently when they have to worry about fundraising and re-election.
.


If you look at politician's as I do, they are nothing but whores. Whoring themselves out to the highest payer.
Yep. That's why we need to minimize the power of money in politics. Term limits and publicly-funded elections would be a great start.
.
 
:desk:

Me!

The "argument", of course, is that "elections are term limits". This comically ignores the fact that incumbents have a massive advantage, both in terms of exposure and in building a multi-layered, long-term power base. The argument is silly and shallow.

There is nothing special about these people. And not even the most naive person can deny that politicians don't behave differently when they have to worry about fundraising and re-election.
.


If you look at politician's as I do, they are nothing but whores. Whoring themselves out to the highest payer.
Yep. That's why we need to minimize the power of money in politics. Term limits and publicly-funded elections would be a great start.
.

Term limits and publicly-funded elections would be a great start.


Term limits, yes.
Public funding, no.

That would just give incumbents a guaranteed advantage.

That's why we need to minimize the power of money in politics.

Limit government spending and power, fewer people will want to get that power.
 
:desk:

Me!

The "argument", of course, is that "elections are term limits". This comically ignores the fact that incumbents have a massive advantage, both in terms of exposure and in building a multi-layered, long-term power base. The argument is silly and shallow.

There is nothing special about these people. And not even the most naive person can deny that politicians don't behave differently when they have to worry about fundraising and re-election.
.


It also ignores the fact that they are not at all the same thing. That is nothing more than a jingoistic phrase to limit debate.

I haven't heard an argument yet that washes with me for why there should not be term limits. I've had discussions on this and other boards that amazingly didn't devolve into snark wars and allowed for actual lengthy and developed discussion,and still see no reason for lack of term limits on these guys that outweighs what I see as the negative impacts of letting this turn into a lifetime position.
 
The reality is that term limits would protect me from the politicians of other states......the states that re elect corrupt criminals who use their power to buy votes in their districts....and raise taxes on me and mine to do it.....
 
Absolutely. I fully support Ted Cruz's and Ron DeSantis' term limit amendment. It was introduced a couple months ago; however, I have a feeling it will likely go nowhere. I don't expect members of Congress to build their own gallows.

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/20170103_TermLimitsBill.pdf

Like I said, if we want this done the Article V amendment process is the only way

Are you a supporter?

I am.

Well then, do you know who your state legislator is and if they are in favor of the Article V movement?

They need just 2/3 of the states to approve and then they can move forward with the process.

Find out who they are and tell them you support it, or vote for someone who does.

Otherwise, this will never happen.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: mdk
Absolutely. I fully support Ted Cruz's and Ron DeSantis' term limit amendment. It was introduced a couple months ago; however, I have a feeling it will likely go nowhere. I don't expect members of Congress to build their own gallows.

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/20170103_TermLimitsBill.pdf

Like I said, if we want this done the Article V amendment process is the only way

Are you a supporter?

I am.

Well then, do you know who your state legislator is and if they are in favor of the Article V movement?

They need just 2/3 of the states to approve and then they can move forward with the process.

Find out who they are and tell them you support it, or vote for someone who does.

Otherwise, this will never happen.

I have sent my state assemblyman several letters concerning this issue. Each one was responsed with the same noncommittal answer that stated he needed more time to study the issue further. I don't believe his support will be forthcoming any time soon.
 
In addition to term limits, a potential congressperson should be a multimillionaire, already own a home in DC and have a lot of frequent flyer miles.
 

Forum List

Back
Top