Who supports term limits for Congress?

[Votto]

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.

Then threaten to vote for an opponent of theirs that does.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Morons we have term limits it is called an election. If you and your buddies are to STUPID to vote people out you got no one to blame but yourselves.

 

[Votto]

Morons we have term limits it is called an election. If you and your buddies are to STUPID to vote people out you got no one to blame but yourselves.

Congress has only had an approval rating less than 20% for decades, yet the same people keep getting elected.

There are a myriad of ways to keep getting elected it seems other than doing your job.

 

[Votto]

Huge Win: NC Senate passes Convention of States resolution

In NC, the Senate just passed an Article V resolution, now the House has to pass it.

If you live there, call and beg!!

 

[gipper]

If Trump were serious about draining the swamp, he would be pushing term limits hard.

The POTUS is limited to two terms. As such, so should senators and house members.

Of course, the chances of this being enacted is just about zero.

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.

If Trump were serious about draining the swamp, he would be pushing term limits hard.

The POTUS is limited to two terms. As such, so should senators and house members.

Of course, the chances of this being enacted is just about zero.

 

[Never3ndr]

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

In general, I would say no. The easy example here would be your doctor...who generally has taken about a decade in schooling to even get his/her credentials. Would you be fine if your doctor had no required schooling and could only gain experience for a limited number of years (let's say 8). Do you think that our level of medicine would increase or decrease by capping out the number of years a person can practice medicine?

Likewise, being elected requires no schooling and no experience. You just have to be popular, and (like Trump) have money or be able to generate money from your friends. How to effectively govern a nation is something that is still debated today...less is known about governance than we know about medicine and anatomy...yet we require less credentials and experience from our politicians than we do our doctors. Now, idiots are thinking that we should shove out experienced people and keep rotating in new crops of idiots who have to learn from the ground up and then get booted out shortly thereafter.

Here is a thought...if you are concerned about the corruption of politicians...look at ways to reform the electoral system and get the money out of politics...looking at term limits is about as idiotic as chopping your arm off because your elbow itches. Money = corruption. It is literally that simple. Concentrate on the problem and ways to solve the problem, not on some made up convolution you heard on Fox News.

 

[Mac1958]

If Trump were serious about draining the swamp, he would be pushing term limits hard.

The POTUS is limited to two terms. As such, so should senators and house members.

Of course, the chances of this being enacted is just about zero.

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.

If Trump were serious about draining the swamp, he would be pushing term limits hard.

The POTUS is limited to two terms. As such, so should senators and house members.

Of course, the chances of this being enacted is just about zero.

Can't argue, unless we elect politicians who will fight for them.

Of course, getting them elected against an incumbent will be terribly difficult, which was part of my point.

Shit. You're probably right.
.

 

[Votto]

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

In general, I would say no. The easy example here would be your doctor...who generally has taken about a decade in schooling to even get his/her credentials. Would you be fine if your doctor had no required schooling and could only gain experience for a limited number of years (let's say 8). Do you think that our level of medicine would increase or decrease by capping out the number of years a person can practice medicine?

Likewise, being elected requires no schooling and no experience. You just have to be popular, and (like Trump) have money or be able to generate money from your friends. How to effectively govern a nation is something that is still debated today...less is known about governance than we know about medicine and anatomy...yet we require less credentials and experience from our politicians than we do our doctors. Now, idiots are thinking that we should shove out experienced people and keep rotating in new crops of idiots who have to learn from the ground up and then get booted out shortly thereafter.

Here is a thought...if you are concerned about the corruption of politicians...look at ways to reform the electoral system and get the money out of politics...looking at term limits is about as idiotic as chopping your arm off because your elbow itches. Money = corruption. It is literally that simple. Concentrate on the problem and ways to solve the problem, not on some made up convolution you heard on Fox News.

Well let's see, $20 trillion plus in debt and nothing to show for it, America divided in two, and continuous wars abroad on the verge of WW3 cuz these experienced politicians feel the need to police the world?

I'll take my chances with Joe Blow assuming office. I prefer people in office trying to create a world they will have to reenter instead of a life long ivory tower career in office with a lavish retirement plan and health care they give only for themselves while forcing all the little people into Obamacare.

They just don't make hell hot enough.

 

[Votto]

If Trump were serious about draining the swamp, he would be pushing term limits hard.

The POTUS is limited to two terms. As such, so should senators and house members.

Of course, the chances of this being enacted is just about zero.

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.

If Trump were serious about draining the swamp, he would be pushing term limits hard.

The POTUS is limited to two terms. As such, so should senators and house members.

Of course, the chances of this being enacted is just about zero.

Can't argue, unless we elect politicians who will fight for them.

Of course, getting them elected against an incumbent will be terribly difficult, which was part of my point.

Shit. You're probably right.
.

Nothing will change unless the Article V movement is successful.

Some place their hopes on Trump to drain the swamp but Trump is essentially an elected lame duck President. Moreover, I'm not confident he was serious about the promise to drain the swamp.

 

[Seawytch]

We have term limits, they're called elections. Partisan gerrymandering and monied influences are much larger problems.

 

[Mac1958]

Did I call it?

 

[Seawytch]

If Trump were serious about draining the swamp, he would be pushing term limits hard.

The POTUS is limited to two terms. As such, so should senators and house members.

Of course, the chances of this being enacted is just about zero.

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.

If Trump were serious about draining the swamp, he would be pushing term limits hard.

The POTUS is limited to two terms. As such, so should senators and house members.

Of course, the chances of this being enacted is just about zero.

Can't argue, unless we elect politicians who will fight for them.

Of course, getting them elected against an incumbent will be terribly difficult, which was part of my point.

Shit. You're probably right.
.

Nothing will change unless the Article V movement is successful.

Some place their hopes on Trump to drain the swamp but Trump is essentially an elected lame duck President. Moreover, I'm not confident he was serious about the promise to drain the swamp.

How do you have both houses and be a lame duck?

 

[Votto]

We have term limits, they're called elections. Partisan gerrymandering and monied influences are much larger problems.

Turnover in Congress is less than they had in the government in the former USSR.

As I have said, poll numbers show that approval ratings have hovered around 10% for decades. Elections have not taken care of the problem.

All we are left with are polarizing demagogues whose actions can be predicted on any particular issue. To add insult to injury, most are ugly, corrupt, and dumb as a brick, such as Waters and Pocahontas and Pelosi. They are like bad cartoon characters pretending that they are actually representing Americans as most detest them. Then there is the war horse McCan't that never met a war he did not enjoy.

Enough!

The only ones who like the system the way it is now, are those who enjoy insane debt, mass illegal immigration, and a polarized political landscape the divides America to the brink of Civil war.

I'm sure this leaves out most Dims who are just counting down till, 2020 to resume their party.

 

[Seawytch]

Did I call it?

Wow! You "called" that someone would have a divergent opinion on a message board. Yup, you ARE the Great Kreskin!

 

[Mac1958]

 

[gipper]

We have term limits, they're called elections. Partisan gerrymandering and monied influences are much larger problems.

Turnover in Congress is less than they had in the government in the former USSR.

As I have said, poll numbers show that approval ratings have hovered around 10% for decades. Elections have not taken care of the problem.

All we are left with are polarizing demagogues whose actions can be predicted on any particular issue. To add insult to injury, most are ugly, corrupt, and dumb as a brick, such as Waters and Pocahontas and Pelosi. They are like bad cartoon characters pretending that they are actually representing Americans as most detest them. Then there is the war horse McCan't that never met a war he did not enjoy.

Enough!

The only ones who like the system the way it is now, are those who enjoy insane debt, mass illegal immigration, and a polarized political landscape the divides America to the brink of Civil war.

I'm sure this leaves out most Dims who are just counting down till, 2020 to resume their party.

The only way term limits gets enacted is a POTUS demanding it and getting the American people behind it. Term limits exist in many state legislatures. So, it can happen. It just needs the right person to push it hard to the public and expose the criminality that currently exists in DC.

Trump said he would push for term limits, but since he took office he has done nothing about it.

 

[danielpalos]

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

I support repeal of the 17th Amendment.

 

[gipper]

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

I support repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Why?

 

[danielpalos]

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

I support repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Why?

Our Founding Fathers got it right, the first time.

 

[Fenton Lum]

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.

It won't happen anyway. If we are to accept observations made throughout this thread as to them all being crooked harlots, etc., etc.; they are not cutting off their own meal ticket. Furthermore, all we vote for and elect are the puppets who are in turn called upon by lobbyists, think tank pimps and Wall Street which is who they really serve after all. In principle it sounds like a good idea worthy of support by all, I just don’t see the system responding to the needs and/or will of “the people”. “The people” is not who the system serves. Recall the bailouts, reasonable gun legislation that gets repitched as “grabbing”, and the public option/single payer healthcare "debate". The/a majority of the public’s position on each of these issues was irrelevant to the outcomes.