Just what is it that you think term limits will accomplish?

[rightwinger]

You will trade politicians who take special interest money for re-election for politicians who take special interest money to make themselves rich as possible before they are kicked out.

Also, what is wrong with special interest money? Personally, I can think of a couple of special interest groups that I like buying politicians, the BRA for example.

You won't get rid of corruption with term limits.

special interest money has completely corrupted our system. simply because you might agree that 1 or 2 of these groups are to your liking doesn't detract from the net influence of all of this bribery money, which is, without question, negative to the better interests of the country.

we won't get rid of corruption by continuing to support the same people that have corrupted the system either, it would seem to me. .

I'm not going to bother with the definition of insanity stuff. you know the drill.

continuing to support the same people that have clearly crashed the bus makes no sense whatsoever. Time to learn from our mistakes, move them out and prevent it from happening again.

what is the worst thing that can happen? congress is dysfunctional for a period of transition? It is already, beyond a shadow of a doubt, already dysfunctional.

Maybe we'll replace these crooks with other crooks, but that's at best a wash as well and likely a win as the new crooks won't be as proficient.

Sure, move them out but do it by voting.

What if I have a great congressman. He's doing exactly what my district wants him to do both for us and for the country, and he has been doing it for 12 years. Now I can't have him anymore and maybe I have two complete douchebags running for his seat. How is that to anyone's best interest?

Then the people of your state should pay his entire salary and pension not the rest of the country

You pay the same salary and pension regardless of who wins

You don't understand

The people of for example MA should be paying their congress people's salaries and pensions since those people are representing the people of MA at the federal level they are not representing the people of CT or any other state so why should people in any other state pay for the congress people of a different state?

They are representing their country
They swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the US not to their state
You are a US Senator

 

[rightwinger]

Term Limits are for those who cannot win elections so they look for a way to keep the most qualified candidate from running

Are you for abolishing the term limits of the president?

Do you think that term limits are only supported by people who want to "keep the most qualified candidate from running"?

Yes

Obama in 2016....We would be better off

 

[Moonglow]

What I find most distasteful is how Congressional members at the federal level were able to throw off term limits due to being unconstitutional, yet the same Congress put term limits on the President..Same with drug testing for Congressional members...

 

[Moonglow]

Term Limits are for those who cannot win elections so they look for a way to keep the most qualified candidate from running

Are you for abolishing the term limits of the president?

Do you think that term limits are only supported by people who want to "keep the most qualified candidate from running"?

Yes

Obama in 2016....We would be better off

At least the shackles of tyranny called the Drug War would be dismantled....

 

[Montrovant]

Term Limits are for those who cannot win elections so they look for a way to keep the most qualified candidate from running

Are you for abolishing the term limits of the president?

Do you think that term limits are only supported by people who want to "keep the most qualified candidate from running"?

Yes

Obama in 2016....We would be better off

What about the second part of my post?

 

[rightwinger]

Term Limits are for those who cannot win elections so they look for a way to keep the most qualified candidate from running

Are you for abolishing the term limits of the president?

Do you think that term limits are only supported by people who want to "keep the most qualified candidate from running"?

Yes

Obama in 2016....We would be better off

What about the second part of my post?

Like I already said...I think term limits are for losers
Those who think they can't get elected otherwise

Why is it that only Republicans support term limits?

 

[PredFan]

If they do not have to worry about getting elected maybe they'll actually not be selling out the public to every special interest group that can shovel them enough money to help them keep their jobs.

I'm sure we can find another few hundred people every few years to fill those seats. Nobody loses their representation.

they're also spending a large percentage of their time fundraising instead of actually doing their actual jobs.

If I was padding my nest while on the clock at my former jobs I'd have been fired. If I was serving people that were screwing the people paying me I'd have been fired.

Instead of career leeches let's get people in there that might actually want to make a difference and then get them out before that cesspool corrupts them.

You will trade politicians who take special interest money for re-election for politicians who take special interest money to make themselves rich as possible before they are kicked out.

Also, what is wrong with special interest money? Personally, I can think of a couple of special interest groups that I like buying politicians, the BRA for example.

You won't get rid of corruption with term limits.

special interest money has completely corrupted our system. simply because you might agree that 1 or 2 of these groups are to your liking doesn't detract from the net influence of all of this bribery money, which is, without question, negative to the better interests of the country.

we won't get rid of corruption by continuing to support the same people that have corrupted the system either, it would seem to me. .

I'm not going to bother with the definition of insanity stuff. you know the drill.

continuing to support the same people that have clearly crashed the bus makes no sense whatsoever. Time to learn from our mistakes, move them out and prevent it from happening again.

what is the worst thing that can happen? congress is dysfunctional for a period of transition? It is already, beyond a shadow of a doubt, already dysfunctional.

Maybe we'll replace these crooks with other crooks, but that's at best a wash as well and likely a win as the new crooks won't be as proficient.

Sure, move them out but do it by voting.

What if I have a great congressman. He's doing exactly what my district wants him to do both for us and for the country, and he has been doing it for 12 years. Now I can't have him anymore and maybe I have two complete douchebags running for his seat. How is that to anyone's best interest?

Then the people of your state should pay his entire salary and pension not the rest of the country

I say just get rid of their pensions period.

 

[PredFan]

You will trade politicians who take special interest money for re-election for politicians who take special interest money to make themselves rich as possible before they are kicked out.

Also, what is wrong with special interest money? Personally, I can think of a couple of special interest groups that I like buying politicians, the BRA for example.

You won't get rid of corruption with term limits.

special interest money has completely corrupted our system. simply because you might agree that 1 or 2 of these groups are to your liking doesn't detract from the net influence of all of this bribery money, which is, without question, negative to the better interests of the country.

we won't get rid of corruption by continuing to support the same people that have corrupted the system either, it would seem to me. .

I'm not going to bother with the definition of insanity stuff. you know the drill.

continuing to support the same people that have clearly crashed the bus makes no sense whatsoever. Time to learn from our mistakes, move them out and prevent it from happening again.

what is the worst thing that can happen? congress is dysfunctional for a period of transition? It is already, beyond a shadow of a doubt, already dysfunctional.

Maybe we'll replace these crooks with other crooks, but that's at best a wash as well and likely a win as the new crooks won't be as proficient.

Sure, move them out but do it by voting.

What if I have a great congressman. He's doing exactly what my district wants him to do both for us and for the country, and he has been doing it for 12 years. Now I can't have him anymore and maybe I have two complete douchebags running for his seat. How is that to anyone's best interest?

you're not moving them out by voting, as the evidence shows. they establish themselves, pull in enough money to bury the competition and there they sit, regardless of what they do, so saying 'well, just vote' is not at all accurate, as it's not a level playing field and the longer they sit there, the more that field tilts.

I could list a number of congresspeople that were outright criminals and were still re-elected because of those factors. charlie rangel, for one, yes? That crook is still there.

With term limits you'll get another congressman, just like we get another president, and some cities get another mayor, every X number of years. Don't like that one? well they're gone in X number of years too and the one(s) that follow will have to more closely listen to the voters instead of simply running the opposition into the ground with superior money and a well established propaganda machine that can outshout and/or outsmear the other guy.

these long term people are de facto royalty, immovable by all but the most severe circumstances, if at all, serving and perpetuating an oligarchical system of which they and their money people are the primary benefactors and which runs directly contrary to the interests of the people they are supposedly there to serve. It is a total farce.

It doesn't matter how much money they spend, it still comes down to votes. They are getting the votes because the people want to vote for them.

Do you actually think that term limits will take money out of the process??? You can seriously believe that.

A party or politician who sees a popular congressman's terms coming to an end will spend just as much money as anybody would have, and it will happen more frequently.

So the money pouring into politics doesn't influence voting? That's not the case at all. We all know that.

do I think term limits will take money out of the process? no, but I see no reason not to solve part of the problem simply because it doesn't solve the entire problem.

It also seems far more likely to me that congresspeople that are not influenced by the desire to see this system perpetuate their own careers indefinitely may, if people demand it, then take further steps to limit the influence of money in elections and politics than these people that are so directly deriving benefits from it. Without moving these people and changing that equation that will never happen.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Term limits will do more harm than good. If any good at all.

 

[PredFan]

i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.

For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?

If he in doing a shitty job, he'll get voted out. My representative is not there to serve the nation, he's there to represent my interests.

FYI, my congressman is Alan (crazier than Bernie Sanders) Grayson, but that doesn't change my opinion.

What do you think term limits will accomplish?

Then the president should not have term limits either...

Untrue. The president is not our representative, and he needs to have checks in his power.

he damn sure is our representative, he works for us....

No, he isn't. Our Congressmen are supposed to be our representatives in government. Not the POTUS.

 

[PredFan]

i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.

For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?

If he in doing a shitty job, he'll get voted out. My representative is not there to serve the nation, he's there to represent my interests.

FYI, my congressman is Alan (crazier than Bernie Sanders) Grayson, but that doesn't change my opinion.

What do you think term limits will accomplish?

Then the president should not have term limits either...

Untrue. The president is not our representative, and he needs to have checks in his power.

The president is the representative of the entire nation, while Congresspeople represent their states.

There are already checks on presidential power. Congress and the Supreme Court are there as checks on the President.

If I like my president, and I like what he has done for my country, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?

Because he needs that check on his power.

 

[Fueri]

Term Limits are for those who cannot win elections so they look for a way to keep the most qualified candidate from running

Are you for abolishing the term limits of the president?

Do you think that term limits are only supported by people who want to "keep the most qualified candidate from running"?

Yes

Obama in 2016....We would be better off

What about the second part of my post?

Like I already said...I think term limits are for losers
Those who think they can't get elected otherwise

Why is it that only Republicans support term limits?

75% of adults support term limits, according to a 2013 gallup poll.

Americans Call for Term Limits, End to Electoral College

 

[Fueri]

special interest money has completely corrupted our system. simply because you might agree that 1 or 2 of these groups are to your liking doesn't detract from the net influence of all of this bribery money, which is, without question, negative to the better interests of the country.

we won't get rid of corruption by continuing to support the same people that have corrupted the system either, it would seem to me. .

I'm not going to bother with the definition of insanity stuff. you know the drill.

continuing to support the same people that have clearly crashed the bus makes no sense whatsoever. Time to learn from our mistakes, move them out and prevent it from happening again.

what is the worst thing that can happen? congress is dysfunctional for a period of transition? It is already, beyond a shadow of a doubt, already dysfunctional.

Maybe we'll replace these crooks with other crooks, but that's at best a wash as well and likely a win as the new crooks won't be as proficient.

Sure, move them out but do it by voting.

What if I have a great congressman. He's doing exactly what my district wants him to do both for us and for the country, and he has been doing it for 12 years. Now I can't have him anymore and maybe I have two complete douchebags running for his seat. How is that to anyone's best interest?

you're not moving them out by voting, as the evidence shows. they establish themselves, pull in enough money to bury the competition and there they sit, regardless of what they do, so saying 'well, just vote' is not at all accurate, as it's not a level playing field and the longer they sit there, the more that field tilts.

I could list a number of congresspeople that were outright criminals and were still re-elected because of those factors. charlie rangel, for one, yes? That crook is still there.

With term limits you'll get another congressman, just like we get another president, and some cities get another mayor, every X number of years. Don't like that one? well they're gone in X number of years too and the one(s) that follow will have to more closely listen to the voters instead of simply running the opposition into the ground with superior money and a well established propaganda machine that can outshout and/or outsmear the other guy.

these long term people are de facto royalty, immovable by all but the most severe circumstances, if at all, serving and perpetuating an oligarchical system of which they and their money people are the primary benefactors and which runs directly contrary to the interests of the people they are supposedly there to serve. It is a total farce.

It doesn't matter how much money they spend, it still comes down to votes. They are getting the votes because the people want to vote for them.

Do you actually think that term limits will take money out of the process??? You can seriously believe that.

A party or politician who sees a popular congressman's terms coming to an end will spend just as much money as anybody would have, and it will happen more frequently.

So the money pouring into politics doesn't influence voting? That's not the case at all. We all know that.

do I think term limits will take money out of the process? no, but I see no reason not to solve part of the problem simply because it doesn't solve the entire problem.

It also seems far more likely to me that congresspeople that are not influenced by the desire to see this system perpetuate their own careers indefinitely may, if people demand it, then take further steps to limit the influence of money in elections and politics than these people that are so directly deriving benefits from it. Without moving these people and changing that equation that will never happen.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Term limits will do more harm than good. If any good at all.

Obviously I completely disagree.

Getting rid of the people that benefit from a corrupt system will do no harm, zero, to a body that has been utterly dysfunctional for years at this point.

 

[PredFan]

Sure, move them out but do it by voting.

What if I have a great congressman. He's doing exactly what my district wants him to do both for us and for the country, and he has been doing it for 12 years. Now I can't have him anymore and maybe I have two complete douchebags running for his seat. How is that to anyone's best interest?

you're not moving them out by voting, as the evidence shows. they establish themselves, pull in enough money to bury the competition and there they sit, regardless of what they do, so saying 'well, just vote' is not at all accurate, as it's not a level playing field and the longer they sit there, the more that field tilts.

I could list a number of congresspeople that were outright criminals and were still re-elected because of those factors. charlie rangel, for one, yes? That crook is still there.

With term limits you'll get another congressman, just like we get another president, and some cities get another mayor, every X number of years. Don't like that one? well they're gone in X number of years too and the one(s) that follow will have to more closely listen to the voters instead of simply running the opposition into the ground with superior money and a well established propaganda machine that can outshout and/or outsmear the other guy.

these long term people are de facto royalty, immovable by all but the most severe circumstances, if at all, serving and perpetuating an oligarchical system of which they and their money people are the primary benefactors and which runs directly contrary to the interests of the people they are supposedly there to serve. It is a total farce.

It doesn't matter how much money they spend, it still comes down to votes. They are getting the votes because the people want to vote for them.

Do you actually think that term limits will take money out of the process??? You can seriously believe that.

A party or politician who sees a popular congressman's terms coming to an end will spend just as much money as anybody would have, and it will happen more frequently.

So the money pouring into politics doesn't influence voting? That's not the case at all. We all know that.

do I think term limits will take money out of the process? no, but I see no reason not to solve part of the problem simply because it doesn't solve the entire problem.

It also seems far more likely to me that congresspeople that are not influenced by the desire to see this system perpetuate their own careers indefinitely may, if people demand it, then take further steps to limit the influence of money in elections and politics than these people that are so directly deriving benefits from it. Without moving these people and changing that equation that will never happen.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Term limits will do more harm than good. If any good at all.

Obviously I completely disagree.

Getting rid of the people that benefit from a corrupt system will do no harm, zero, to a body that has been utterly dysfunctional for years at this point.

There is no way you can control it so that you aren't just putting more of the same back in. Odds are you will do nothing but hamper the system.

 

[Cellblock2429]

i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.

For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?

If he in doing a shitty job, he'll get voted out. My representative is not there to serve the nation, he's there to represent my interests.

FYI, my congressman is Alan (crazier than Bernie Sanders) Grayson, but that doesn't change my opinion.

What do you think term limits will accomplish?

The last politician who gave himself term limits was George Washington. No Congressman or Senator will vote him/herself out of a pork laden job.

 

[Fueri]

you're not moving them out by voting, as the evidence shows. they establish themselves, pull in enough money to bury the competition and there they sit, regardless of what they do, so saying 'well, just vote' is not at all accurate, as it's not a level playing field and the longer they sit there, the more that field tilts.

I could list a number of congresspeople that were outright criminals and were still re-elected because of those factors. charlie rangel, for one, yes? That crook is still there.

With term limits you'll get another congressman, just like we get another president, and some cities get another mayor, every X number of years. Don't like that one? well they're gone in X number of years too and the one(s) that follow will have to more closely listen to the voters instead of simply running the opposition into the ground with superior money and a well established propaganda machine that can outshout and/or outsmear the other guy.

these long term people are de facto royalty, immovable by all but the most severe circumstances, if at all, serving and perpetuating an oligarchical system of which they and their money people are the primary benefactors and which runs directly contrary to the interests of the people they are supposedly there to serve. It is a total farce.

It doesn't matter how much money they spend, it still comes down to votes. They are getting the votes because the people want to vote for them.

Do you actually think that term limits will take money out of the process??? You can seriously believe that.

A party or politician who sees a popular congressman's terms coming to an end will spend just as much money as anybody would have, and it will happen more frequently.

So the money pouring into politics doesn't influence voting? That's not the case at all. We all know that.

do I think term limits will take money out of the process? no, but I see no reason not to solve part of the problem simply because it doesn't solve the entire problem.

It also seems far more likely to me that congresspeople that are not influenced by the desire to see this system perpetuate their own careers indefinitely may, if people demand it, then take further steps to limit the influence of money in elections and politics than these people that are so directly deriving benefits from it. Without moving these people and changing that equation that will never happen.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Term limits will do more harm than good. If any good at all.

Obviously I completely disagree.

Getting rid of the people that benefit from a corrupt system will do no harm, zero, to a body that has been utterly dysfunctional for years at this point.

There is no way you can control it so that you aren't just putting more of the same back in. Odds are you will do nothing but hamper the system.

You can keep saying that, but if you are removing the lure of this long term tenure, we are likely reducing the formation of these political dynasties such as Pelosi, Reid, Graham, McConnel etc; etc. and we do not have the same situation at all for many reasons if we replace these people with new faces.

They do not have time to form these personal networks. They do not have time to accumulate 'favors' to pay, it reduces the time they have to form political machines and on and on and on.

These political dynasties are like snowballs rolling down a hill. the further they roll, the bigger they get. It is not, at all, a matter of exchanging, for instance, nancy pelosi for a newbie from California when it comes to this.

you can disagree, and that's fine, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your position that is an apples to apples replacement that does no good.

what I do know is that these people have had plenty of time to fix the situation and they are not going to. the congress no longer serves the people first and these people are not going to change the system as it serves them first and for as long as they desire. They need to go.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The problem is that we are too often faced with a choice of the "lesser of two evils" but feel that we are rarely given the choice of a better candidate. Elections are ruled by money and many people see term limits as perhaps a way of unseating "rich", special interest bankrolled incumbents.

Three alternative options to term limits:

• encourage and support the creation of more parties
• create a "no" vote where if the majority of votes cast are for the "no" option new candidates have to be selected
• all parties are capped in the amount they can spend

Term limits are the expression of voter disappointment in what appears to be little real choice in the candidates running for office.

.

Well....yes and no.

Here in the Big Apple we have term limits on the city council...and guess what: a more stupid, Leftist.....was that redundant?...group you've never seen.


Perhaps we will never see it....but, Milton Friedman hit the nail on the head:

“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office.”


The Left controls the avenues of dissemination of information, and you can see the results on this board: utter stupidity and refusal to face reality.

We're basking in the afterglow of a once great nation.....due to avarice and the hunger for power.

 

[rightwinger]

Term Limits are for those who cannot win elections so they look for a way to keep the most qualified candidate from running

Are you for abolishing the term limits of the president?

Do you think that term limits are only supported by people who want to "keep the most qualified candidate from running"?

Yes

Obama in 2016....We would be better off

What about the second part of my post?

Like I already said...I think term limits are for losers
Those who think they can't get elected otherwise

Why is it that only Republicans support term limits?

75% of adults support term limits, according to a 2013 gallup poll.

Americans Call for Term Limits, End to Electoral College

They are morons

 

[PredFan]

i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.

For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?

If he in doing a shitty job, he'll get voted out. My representative is not there to serve the nation, he's there to represent my interests.

FYI, my congressman is Alan (crazier than Bernie Sanders) Grayson, but that doesn't change my opinion.

What do you think term limits will accomplish?

The last politician who gave himself term limits was George Washington. No Congressman or Senator will vote him/herself out of a pork laden job.

I agree but I'm not talking about the likelihood that it will happen, I'm wondering what people think good it will do.

 

[Flopper]

i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.

For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?

If he in doing a shitty job, he'll get voted out. My representative is not there to serve the nation, he's there to represent my interests.

FYI, my congressman is Alan (crazier than Bernie Sanders) Grayson, but that doesn't change my opinion.

What do you think term limits will accomplish?

Term limits are based on idea that the government should be run by people who don't know anything about it. The result would be more dependence of lobbyist, and staff. I don't see this as good thing at all. Just like any job, experience in governing is an asset.

 

[PredFan]

It doesn't matter how much money they spend, it still comes down to votes. They are getting the votes because the people want to vote for them.

Do you actually think that term limits will take money out of the process??? You can seriously believe that.

A party or politician who sees a popular congressman's terms coming to an end will spend just as much money as anybody would have, and it will happen more frequently.

So the money pouring into politics doesn't influence voting? That's not the case at all. We all know that.

do I think term limits will take money out of the process? no, but I see no reason not to solve part of the problem simply because it doesn't solve the entire problem.

It also seems far more likely to me that congresspeople that are not influenced by the desire to see this system perpetuate their own careers indefinitely may, if people demand it, then take further steps to limit the influence of money in elections and politics than these people that are so directly deriving benefits from it. Without moving these people and changing that equation that will never happen.

You are throwing the baby out with the bath water. Term limits will do more harm than good. If any good at all.

Obviously I completely disagree.

Getting rid of the people that benefit from a corrupt system will do no harm, zero, to a body that has been utterly dysfunctional for years at this point.

There is no way you can control it so that you aren't just putting more of the same back in. Odds are you will do nothing but hamper the system.

You can keep saying that, but if you are removing the lure of this long term tenure, we are likely reducing the formation of these political dynasties such as Pelosi, Reid, Graham, McConnel etc; etc. and we do not have the same situation at all for many reasons if we replace these people with new faces.

They do not have time to form these personal networks. They do not have time to accumulate 'favors' to pay, it reduces the time they have to form political machines and on and on and on.

These political dynasties are like snowballs rolling down a hill. the further they roll, the bigger they get. It is not, at all, a matter of exchanging, for instance, nancy pelosi for a newbie from California when it comes to this.

you can disagree, and that's fine, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your position that is an apples to apples replacement that does no good.

what I do know is that these people have had plenty of time to fix the situation and they are not going to. the congress no longer serves the people first and these people are not going to change the system as it serves them first and for as long as they desire. They need to go.

It's true that we won't have dynasties. I don't see anything wrong with dynasties if that's what the voters want.

Yes, it reduces the time they have to form personal networks but they also have less time to do much of anything.

I agree that the corruption needs to stop but there's no rational reason to think that term limits would stop it. It would do more harm than good to the people they represent.