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

[Fueri]

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.

People want political Dynasties? I'm pretty sure they conclusively do not, if the polls on term limits are to be believed. Sure they keep voting for the same entrenched choice, for reasons we've already discussed

They have plenty of time to do their jobs and will have quiet a bit more due to not having to be spending huge portions of their time on fundraising.

I don't see the harm in changing course on a system that is clearly broken. If it sucks, fine, show that and revert. Somehow I doubt people would see such a horrible drop-off in productivity from a body that is broken already.

I've presented plenty of rationale for my position, while you are simply saying, nope, it will do more harm than good, so I think we're just going in circles now.

 

[Fueri]

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

Well thanks for that highly insightful comment.

You should also agree that the majority of dems are also morons then, according to that litmus test.

 

[Votto]

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?

It will stop career politicians from achieving lavish retirement plans and instead force them to create a world they will actually have to go out into to earn a living themselves.

It is the same reason the term limits were imposed on the President. How can it be good for the President but not those in Congress?

The sad fact is, once in power they tend to stay in power. Power corrupts.

Don't worry though, Congress will never impose term limits on themselves, so your worries are misplaced. Once you have power, you never relinquish power.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Republicans act like governing is easy...anyone can do it

A myriad of rules and regulations, procedural issues, ability to read your fellow legislators
Freshman congressmen is not a standard to aspire to

 

[AZGAL]

term limits keep people young

 

[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?

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?

You are completely wrong that only Republicans support term limits.

Perhaps you might consider that you could be wrong about the reasons for, and viability of, term limits as well.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Republicans act like governing is easy...anyone can do it

A myriad of rules and regulations, procedural issues, ability to read your fellow legislators
Freshman congressmen is not a standard to aspire to

Neither is entrenched, 30-year incumbent a standard to aspire to.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

Why does the president need the check of term limits but other elected officials do not?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

No they are representing the people in their state you now the ones that voted for them.
A Congress critter from CA doesn't give a shit about the voters in any other state

Now if you want to make elections for senators and reps national where everyone who actually pays their salaries can vote you would have a point but until then you don't

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

fine with me especially since the best way to become a millionaire in this country is to get elected to congress

 

[Moonglow]

term limits keep people young

Are you like 90 years young?

 

[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?

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.

Agreed.

 

[PredFan]

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.

People want political Dynasties? I'm pretty sure they conclusively do not, if the polls on term limits are to be believed. Sure they keep voting for the same entrenched choice, for reasons we've already discussed

They have plenty of time to do their jobs and will have quiet a bit more due to not having to be spending huge portions of their time on fundraising.

I don't see the harm in changing course on a system that is clearly broken. If it sucks, fine, show that and revert. Somehow I doubt people would see such a horrible drop-off in productivity from a body that is broken already.

I've presented plenty of rationale for my position, while you are simply saying, nope, it will do more harm than good, so I think we're just going in circles now.

We definitely are going in circles and I thank you for the civil and rational discussion.

 

[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?

It will stop career politicians from achieving lavish retirement plans and instead force them to create a world they will actually have to go out into to earn a living themselves.

It is the same reason the term limits were imposed on the President. How can it be good for the President but not those in Congress?

The sad fact is, once in power they tend to stay in power. Power corrupts.

Don't worry though, Congress will never impose term limits on themselves, so your worries are misplaced. Once you have power, you never relinquish power.

You really think that term limits will stop lavish pension plans?

I doubt seriously that that was the reason term limits were imposed on the POTUS.

It's good for the president because it limits his power, the power (representation) of the people should not be limited the same way.

Power does corrupt and it can and does corrupt quickly. Certainly it can within the 12 years that is the proposed limit.

The vote is the only term limit congress needs, just because we don't like the peopke elected by someone else doesn't mean they should lose their representative.

It takes experience to work for the people of your district effectively, replacing them regularly requires new people to spend time learning the ropes. The cost of term limits is much too high for the imagined and hoped for, gains.

 

[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?

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.

Republicans act like governing is easy...anyone can do it

A myriad of rules and regulations, procedural issues, ability to read your fellow legislators
Freshman congressmen is not a standard to aspire to

Republicans are not the only ones asking for term limits.

 

[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.

Why does the president need the check of term limits but other elected officials do not?

Because the POTUS is one man who has an equal power to all of congress. An individual congressman has no where near the power of the POTUS. He needs that check on his power.

 

[Fueri]

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.

People want political Dynasties? I'm pretty sure they conclusively do not, if the polls on term limits are to be believed. Sure they keep voting for the same entrenched choice, for reasons we've already discussed

They have plenty of time to do their jobs and will have quiet a bit more due to not having to be spending huge portions of their time on fundraising.

I don't see the harm in changing course on a system that is clearly broken. If it sucks, fine, show that and revert. Somehow I doubt people would see such a horrible drop-off in productivity from a body that is broken already.

I've presented plenty of rationale for my position, while you are simply saying, nope, it will do more harm than good, so I think we're just going in circles now.

We definitely are going in circles and I thank you for the civil and rational discussion.

Likewise.

 

[longknife]

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?

We already have term limits!

Presidents may serve no more than two four year terms.

Senators serve for six years. Representatives serve for two. When their terms are up, it's up to the voters to decide their fate! That's the way it's supposed to be.

 

[rightwinger]

Please....Please!

Someone pass a law to stop me from voting for this guy!
I can't help myself

 

[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?

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.

Why does the president need the check of term limits but other elected officials do not?

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, congressmen represent their state and the people of that state. The president does not. He is essential an employee hired to manage the government. For the federal government to tell the states who they can elect to represent them seems a little more than just heavy handed.

Secondly, we expect our congressmen to represent us, not lobbyist, legislative staff, and bureaucrats. The less time they spend in congress, the less they will know and the more they will rely on these people. Committees that serve as watchdogs over the administration would be staffed with less experienced and knowledgeable members and become depend on the people they are suppose to be monitoring.