Who supports term limits for Congress?

[gipper]

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.

And the person you elect…are they whores too? How long does it take for them to become whores?

They are no more whores than the people who elect them endlessly while fecklessly hoping for a different outcome, believing that if only we can get enough of "ours" in it will be different.

Yeah, that’s my point. Whomever you elect is going to be a “whore” because, I feel, those making the argument for term limits are not fully engaged in what the issues are. Someone has to make the decisions about how to spend tax monies. And whomever is ultimately responsible will have allegations made about them.

When I vote for someone, I vote for her/him to look out for my interests. I assume those in other states like Idaho and Texas are doing the same. If my “whore” can bring home more bacon than your “whore”, I win.

You miss the point of term limits. This may be because being a liberal, you expect government to do things for you.

Term limits are about limiting corruption and forcing pols to do what the people want, not the what Oligarchy wants.

Why do you side with the Oligarchy? You have nothing in common with them.

 

[Fenton Lum]

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.

And the person you elect…are they whores too? How long does it take for them to become whores?

They are no more whores than the people who elect them endlessly while fecklessly hoping for a different outcome, believing that if only we can get enough of "ours" in it will be different.

Yeah, that’s my point. Whomever you elect is going to be a “whore” because, I feel, those making the argument for term limits are not fully engaged in what the issues are. Someone has to make the decisions about how to spend tax monies. And whomever is ultimately responsible will have allegations made about them.

When I vote for someone, I vote for her/him to look out for my interests. I assume those in other states like Idaho and Texas are doing the same. If my “whore” can bring home more bacon than your “whore”, I win.

You miss the point of term limits. This may be because being a liberal, you expect government to do things for you.

Term limits are about limiting corruption and forcing pols to do what the people want, not the what Oligarchy wants.

Why do you side with the Oligarchy? You have nothing in common with them.

Anyone who engages in this stupid partisanshithead perceptual reality aids your Oligarchy, you should lose the labels and stick to points.

 

[dcbl]

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

Thomas Jefferson

/thread

 

[gipper]

And the person you elect…are they whores too? How long does it take for them to become whores?

They are no more whores than the people who elect them endlessly while fecklessly hoping for a different outcome, believing that if only we can get enough of "ours" in it will be different.

Yeah, that’s my point. Whomever you elect is going to be a “whore” because, I feel, those making the argument for term limits are not fully engaged in what the issues are. Someone has to make the decisions about how to spend tax monies. And whomever is ultimately responsible will have allegations made about them.

When I vote for someone, I vote for her/him to look out for my interests. I assume those in other states like Idaho and Texas are doing the same. If my “whore” can bring home more bacon than your “whore”, I win.

Yup, you're a whore, quit your bitching.

Takes one to know one I suppose.

Suppositions are all you have son.

Candy is a little girl. Be nice.

 

[candycorn]

Votto

What would be the plan for term limits?

Just finish someone off after 2 terms or are they able to run for Senate or from the Senate to the House afterword? Can they run for President (getting potentially 2 terms in the House (4 years), 2 terms in the Senate (12 years) and maybe a term or two in the Oval (8 years) thus making 24 years.

Keep in mind…
The average House member has served 9.1 years and the average Senator has served 10.2 years.

I would say two terms and gone, just like the President.

Sure, if they want to run for something else then have at it.

So essentially, you’re going to remove about 1-2 years from the average Congressman’s time in office? Do you really think that will make much difference?

Does having Maria Cantwell in the Senate bother you that much? Most people reading will say “who”? And rightly so. I think that many here like the visceral idea of getting rid of the opposition leader since they are more visible. It’s a dumb position because what you’ll run into is just an opposition leader who is going to be much harder to work with than A McConnell or a Schumer because they are not going to have any sort of relationship with the opposition.

More than anything else, we need to give the constitution a voice where it currently doesn’t have one.

The US congress used to be a part time position. Most of the business was done by state government. Then over time they gradually gained influence and power and then created the US federal income tax to fuel their takeover of state governments.

The Founders envisioned a limited government whereby the average citizen could serve in Congress. It was never meant to be a position you almost had to be born into and then serve and entire life time doing with a lavish retirement plan. Nor were they put their to dictate to the rest of the country.

The “founders” were a large group of people who felt any number of ways about any number of topics. I seem to remember some of the founders not wanting the public to vote at all for President. James Madison didn’t like the Electoral College:

Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President - FairVote

Alexander Hamilton didn’t think that the masses should have any say in the Presidential elections.

FairVote - Articles by Ryan O'Donnell

When a large group of them got together they said that a black man is 3/5 of a person too. In a document that a lot of them signed off on thus agreeing to it by affixing their name.

Should we still think that way?

 

[gipper]

If you look at politician's as I do, they are nothing but whores. Whoring themselves out to the highest payer.

And the person you elect…are they whores too? How long does it take for them to become whores?

They are no more whores than the people who elect them endlessly while fecklessly hoping for a different outcome, believing that if only we can get enough of "ours" in it will be different.

Yeah, that’s my point. Whomever you elect is going to be a “whore” because, I feel, those making the argument for term limits are not fully engaged in what the issues are. Someone has to make the decisions about how to spend tax monies. And whomever is ultimately responsible will have allegations made about them.

When I vote for someone, I vote for her/him to look out for my interests. I assume those in other states like Idaho and Texas are doing the same. If my “whore” can bring home more bacon than your “whore”, I win.

You miss the point of term limits. This may be because being a liberal, you expect government to do things for you.

Term limits are about limiting corruption and forcing pols to do what the people want, not the what Oligarchy wants.

Why do you side with the Oligarchy? You have nothing in common with them.

Anyone who engages in this stupid partisanshithead perceptual reality aids your Oligarchy, you should lose the labels and stick to points.

Agreed but it is hard.

 

[whitehall]

Presidents were once gentlemen and bowed out voluntarily after two terms but the democrat party had a better idea and they ran an infirm sick old man for an astonishing four terms. The kicker is that democrats knew FDR would die in his last term after they lied to Americans that he was healthy and they hand picked a dumb (never had a college education) rube bean counter senator from Missouri to be FDR's successor. FDR's medical records mysteriously (yeah right) disappeared from a locked safe shortly after his demise in April 1945. The point is that we need term limits for the top job because the president is the most powerful person on earth. Lesser forms of politicians are hired and fired by the voters and no term limits are necessary.

 

[Fenton Lum]

And the person you elect…are they whores too? How long does it take for them to become whores?

They are no more whores than the people who elect them endlessly while fecklessly hoping for a different outcome, believing that if only we can get enough of "ours" in it will be different.

Yeah, that’s my point. Whomever you elect is going to be a “whore” because, I feel, those making the argument for term limits are not fully engaged in what the issues are. Someone has to make the decisions about how to spend tax monies. And whomever is ultimately responsible will have allegations made about them.

When I vote for someone, I vote for her/him to look out for my interests. I assume those in other states like Idaho and Texas are doing the same. If my “whore” can bring home more bacon than your “whore”, I win.

You miss the point of term limits. This may be because being a liberal, you expect government to do things for you.

Term limits are about limiting corruption and forcing pols to do what the people want, not the what Oligarchy wants.

Why do you side with the Oligarchy? You have nothing in common with them.

Anyone who engages in this stupid partisanshithead perceptual reality aids your Oligarchy, you should lose the labels and stick to points.

Agreed but it is hard.

I know, it's a journey, we've all been indoctrinated, but it feeds the beast. I may need you to call me out on it as well.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Presidents were once gentlemen and bowed out voluntarily after two terms but the democrat party had a better idea and they ran an infirm sick old man for an astonishing four terms. The kicker is that democrats knew FDR would die in his last term after they lied to Americans that he was healthy and they hand picked a dumb (never had a college education) rube bean counter senator from Missouri to be FDR's successor. FDR's medical records mysteriously (yeah right) disappeared from a locked safe shortly after his demise in April 1945. The point is that we need term limits for the top job because the president is the most powerful person on earth. Lesser forms of politicians are hired and fired by the voters and no term limits are necessary.

Gentlemen like Andrew Jackson. These lesser forms are often in for decades upon decades, feeding at the same trough you would shat yourself over if a homeless person got a meal from.

 

[candycorn]

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

It's the states that will decide for term limits on their congressmen & senators. That's were they come from and who elected them. The U.S. congress as an entity has no authority to make that decision.

Oh shit, you're right. Then most of this thread is for naught.

There are a lot of threads on this board that are for naught--LOL The states elect their own congressmen and senators, and only the states can put a measure on the ballot for term limits.

The US congress as an entity does not have that authority.

In the defense of the OP, I think what he is saying is that we need to change the constitution so after 2 terms, the people can’t be trusted to vote for someone doing a good job

Those in office should reflect those in society instead of a bunch of out of touch elitists.
That was the design.

Oh, so 52% of all delegations should be female (the reflection of society)?

 

[candycorn]

And they should be 13% black?

 

[Votto]

It's the states that will decide for term limits on their congressmen & senators. That's were they come from and who elected them. The U.S. congress as an entity has no authority to make that decision.

Oh shit, you're right. Then most of this thread is for naught.

There are a lot of threads on this board that are for naught--LOL The states elect their own congressmen and senators, and only the states can put a measure on the ballot for term limits.

The US congress as an entity does not have that authority.

In the defense of the OP, I think what he is saying is that we need to change the constitution so after 2 terms, the people can’t be trusted to vote for someone doing a good job

Those in office should reflect those in society instead of a bunch of out of touch elitists.
That was the design.

Oh, so 52% of all delegations should be female (the reflection of society)?

Women are free to run. Everyone is free to run.

I'm not suggesting some type of mindless affirmative action here.

 

[task0778]

I'm good with term limits for Congress. I am also for requiring all federal judges including the SCOTUS to be reconfirmed every 10 years.

 

[Mac1958]

The longer someone is in office the more likely that they will be compromised.

 

[candycorn]

Oh shit, you're right. Then most of this thread is for naught.

There are a lot of threads on this board that are for naught--LOL The states elect their own congressmen and senators, and only the states can put a measure on the ballot for term limits.

The US congress as an entity does not have that authority.

In the defense of the OP, I think what he is saying is that we need to change the constitution so after 2 terms, the people can’t be trusted to vote for someone doing a good job

Those in office should reflect those in society instead of a bunch of out of touch elitists.
That was the design.

Oh, so 52% of all delegations should be female (the reflection of society)?

Women are free to run. Everyone is free to run.

I'm not suggesting some type of mindless affirmative action here.

Well, you said “those in office should reflect those in society”.
Why not pass an amendment that does that by making a rule that the genders breakdown from the Census be incorporated into who is eligible to run? Because you’re already arbitrarily doing that by saying 4 years is enough for Jane Doe because, somehow, they get deemed to be an “out of touch elitist”.

 

[candycorn]

The longer someone is in office the more likely that they will be compromised.

Someone watches too much television.

 

[Mac1958]

The longer someone is in office the more likely that they will be compromised.

Someone watches too much television.

So find something more productive.
.

 

[Votto]

There are a lot of threads on this board that are for naught--LOL The states elect their own congressmen and senators, and only the states can put a measure on the ballot for term limits.

The US congress as an entity does not have that authority.

In the defense of the OP, I think what he is saying is that we need to change the constitution so after 2 terms, the people can’t be trusted to vote for someone doing a good job

Those in office should reflect those in society instead of a bunch of out of touch elitists.
That was the design.

Oh, so 52% of all delegations should be female (the reflection of society)?

Women are free to run. Everyone is free to run.

I'm not suggesting some type of mindless affirmative action here.

Well, you said “those in office should reflect those in society”.
Why not pass an amendment that does that by making a rule that the genders breakdown from the Census be incorporated into who is eligible to run? Because you’re already arbitrarily doing that by saying 4 years is enough for Jane Doe because, somehow, they get deemed to be an “out of touch elitist”.

The issue is institutionalize corruption

I have no agenda with social engineering like those on the left.

 

[candycorn]

In the defense of the OP, I think what he is saying is that we need to change the constitution so after 2 terms, the people can’t be trusted to vote for someone doing a good job

Those in office should reflect those in society instead of a bunch of out of touch elitists.
That was the design.

Oh, so 52% of all delegations should be female (the reflection of society)?

Women are free to run. Everyone is free to run.

I'm not suggesting some type of mindless affirmative action here.

Well, you said “those in office should reflect those in society”.
Why not pass an amendment that does that by making a rule that the genders breakdown from the Census be incorporated into who is eligible to run? Because you’re already arbitrarily doing that by saying 4 years is enough for Jane Doe because, somehow, they get deemed to be an “out of touch elitist”.

The issue is institutionalize corruption

I have no agenda with social engineering like those on the left.

Wouldn’t it be better to add rules to stop the Institutionalized Corruption then instead of telling people who they can or cannot vote for?

Not to be bothersome about this but can you give one example that clearly indicates what you’re talking about (in reasonable detail) and how term limits would have prevented it? Seems to me that if you are saying the rules are not there to prevent corruption, changing the players won’t matter except to the extent to where you won’t have to look at John McCain’s face any longer…

 

[oreo]

I'm good with term limits for Congress. I am also for requiring all federal judges including the SCOTUS to be reconfirmed every 10 years.

Well again--it's the individual states that will decide on term limits--it's not up to the U.S. congress to decide what states will do with their elected representatives.

As far as reconfirming U.S. Supreme court judges every 10 years, that's never going to happen.

As far as changing or repealing any amendment to the U.S Constituion would require a 2/3's vote of congress, a 2/3's vote in the Senate and then it would have to be ratified by 38 state legislatures.