House GOP Bill Pushes Term Limits

[BlindBoo]

2/3 of the House
2/3 of the Senate
3/4 of the States

Ain't going to happen

I agree it's not likely at all. Neither will a law. I think the SC would strike down a law.

they didn't strike down the presidential term limit....

Hahahahaha, Did you really say that?

They can't rule the Constitution un-Constitutional.

 

[Redfish]

I agree it's not likely at all. Neither will a law. I think the SC would strike down a law.

they didn't strike down the presidential term limit....

Hahahahaha, Did you really say that.

They can't rule the Constitution un-Constitutional.

at least you got that right

 

[rightwinger]

OMG, are you as ignorant as you pretend to be?

Not an answer

I was dumb enough to assume you had one

Gridlock would be reduced if the representatives knew that they were only there for a short time, they would be motivated to get things done rather than spending all their time trying keep everyone happy and get reelected.

They would not have to worry about taking a stand on a controversial issue.

Thats it?

A representative at the end of his term is looking for future employment. He does not want to vote contrary to what his party wants.

 

[rightwinger]

Our Congress can't even get a simple budget passed...

Who thinks they are capable of passing a Constitutional Amendment? Another Republican taking up time by proposing meaningless bills.

At least they are proposing a bill. Obama can't even propose a budget...

I guess they got tired of all those "Repeal Obamacare" votes to pander to the base

 

[R.C. Christian]

Being executing the scumbags in congress for their crimes and I guarantee you that you'll never have a future need for term limits.

 

[kaz]

Our Congress can't even get a simple budget passed...

Who thinks they are capable of passing a Constitutional Amendment? Another Republican taking up time by proposing meaningless bills.

At least they are proposing a bill. Obama can't even propose a budget...

I guess they got tired of all those "Repeal Obamacare" votes to pander to the base

Republicans all want Obamacare repealed. So do huge numbers of Democrats. How is it "pandering" to do what you and your constituents want done? Or is "pandering" another word in a long line of words you don't know and aren't going to bother learning?

 

[rightwinger]

At least they are proposing a bill. Obama can't even propose a budget...

I guess they got tired of all those "Repeal Obamacare" votes to pander to the base

Republicans all want Obamacare repealed. So do huge numbers of Democrats. How is it "pandering" to do what you and your constituents want done? Or is "pandering" another word in a long line of words you don't know and aren't going to bother learning?

40 useless votes is not pandering?

How many does it take before Republicans reach the threshold of pandering?

 

[Hum Dinger]

While term limits for congressmen are a good idea, term limits for SCOTUS are more vital.

Letting them serve for life or whenever they want to retire is BULLSHIT!

 

[kaz]

I guess they got tired of all those "Repeal Obamacare" votes to pander to the base

Republicans all want Obamacare repealed. So do huge numbers of Democrats. How is it "pandering" to do what you and your constituents want done? Or is "pandering" another word in a long line of words you don't know and aren't going to bother learning?

40 useless votes is not pandering?

How many does it take before Republicans reach the threshold of pandering?

The number of votes taken has nothing to do with the definition of pandering. It's WHY they do it, not how many times. Republicans are united against Obamacare, using the word pandering just goes to show your ignorance, and your insistence on defending it shows the only thing you work hard at is protecting your ignorance.

Seriously, buy a dictionary. By seriously, I mean I'm not kidding. Do it. You have just a dreadful command of the English language. If you realized how bad it is, you would be so embarrassed. It's pathetic.

 

[Redfish]

Not an answer

I was dumb enough to assume you had one

Gridlock would be reduced if the representatives knew that they were only there for a short time, they would be motivated to get things done rather than spending all their time trying keep everyone happy and get reelected.

They would not have to worry about taking a stand on a controversial issue.

Thats it?

A representative at the end of his term is looking for future employment. He does not want to vote contrary to what his party wants.

there will always be opportunities for those who are corrupt. Term limits would take away some of the opportunities, not all, but some.

I would also like to see "none of the above" on all ballots. If "none of the above" wins then the others on the ballot could not run for that position again. How about that?

 

[rightwinger]

Gridlock would be reduced if the representatives knew that they were only there for a short time, they would be motivated to get things done rather than spending all their time trying keep everyone happy and get reelected.

They would not have to worry about taking a stand on a controversial issue.

Thats it?

A representative at the end of his term is looking for future employment. He does not want to vote contrary to what his party wants.

there will always be opportunities for those who are corrupt. Term limits would take away some of the opportunities, not all, but some.

I would also like to see "none of the above" on all ballots. If "none of the above" wins then the others on the ballot could not run for that position again. How about that?

There already is none of the above. You just don't vote for either candidate

 

[Redfish]

Thats it?

A representative at the end of his term is looking for future employment. He does not want to vote contrary to what his party wants.

there will always be opportunities for those who are corrupt. Term limits would take away some of the opportunities, not all, but some.

I would also like to see "none of the above" on all ballots. If "none of the above" wins then the others on the ballot could not run for that position again. How about that?

There already is none of the above. You just don't vote for either candidate

nope, its not the same, one of them is going to win. With none of the above on the ballot, they could both lose.

 

[rightwinger]

there will always be opportunities for those who are corrupt. Term limits would take away some of the opportunities, not all, but some.

I would also like to see "none of the above" on all ballots. If "none of the above" wins then the others on the ballot could not run for that position again. How about that?

There already is none of the above. You just don't vote for either candidate

nope, its not the same, one of them is going to win. With none of the above on the ballot, they could both lose.

Then what do you do?

 

[Redfish]

There already is none of the above. You just don't vote for either candidate

nope, its not the same, one of them is going to win. With none of the above on the ballot, they could both lose.

Then what do you do?

have another election with new candidates.

 

[rightwinger]

nope, its not the same, one of them is going to win. With none of the above on the ballot, they could both lose.

Then what do you do?

have another election with new candidates.

Like we don't waste enough money on elections?

 

[Redfish]

Then what do you do?

have another election with new candidates.

Like we don't waste enough money on elections?

yes, it would cost money, but we might get people in office that we want in office. we might be able to vote FOR someone rather than always choosing the lesser of two evils. It would be worth it.

 

[Rocko]

Most Americans are in favor of term limits, but these leaches have an unrelenting vice grip on power.

 

[rightwinger]

have another election with new candidates.

Like we don't waste enough money on elections?

yes, it would cost money, but we might get people in office that we want in office. we might be able to vote FOR someone rather than always choosing the lesser of two evils. It would be worth it.

Not really, you will get second and third tier candidates as the voters get their "**** em all" feelings out of their system

 

[rightwinger]

Most Americans are in favor of term limits, but these leaches have an unrelenting vice grip on power.

If they are, why don't they vote them out after two terms?

 

[The T]

Gridlock would be reduced if the representatives knew that they were only there for a short time, they would be motivated to get things done rather than spending all their time trying keep everyone happy and get reelected.

They would not have to worry about taking a stand on a controversial issue.

Thats it?

A representative at the end of his term is looking for future employment. He does not want to vote contrary to what his party wants.

there will always be opportunities for those who are corrupt. Term limits would take away some of the opportunities, not all, but some.

I would also like to see "none of the above" on all ballots. If "none of the above" wins then the others on the ballot could not run for that position again. How about that?

All for it. It will weed out undesirable people from grabbing power that they don't deserve. It will force the Parties to better vet candidates as well, and return more power back to the people.