Sen. Cruz's Intro Remarks at Term Limits Hearing as Chairman

Penelope

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2014
Messages
44,798
Reaction score
4,555
Points
1,860
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz introduced a constitutional amendment Friday that would restrict senators to two six-year terms. It goes into effect after it's passed, so Cruz would still be able to run for two additional Senate terms.

The amendment would also limit members of the House of Representatives to three two-year terms. It's cosponsored by Republican Sens. Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, and David Purdue.

Ted Cruz introduced a term limit bill that would allow just two terms for Senators
--------------------------------------------
I'd be for it as long as it affected everyone that is in the Senate, including Cruz.
 

Votto

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
23,215
Reaction score
4,165
Points
280
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz introduced a constitutional amendment Friday that would restrict senators to two six-year terms. It goes into effect after it's passed, so Cruz would still be able to run for two additional Senate terms.

The amendment would also limit members of the House of Representatives to three two-year terms. It's cosponsored by Republican Sens. Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, and David Purdue.

Ted Cruz introduced a term limit bill that would allow just two terms for Senators
--------------------------------------------
I'd be for it as long as it affected everyone that is in the Senate, including Cruz.
Congress would never do this to themselves.


They did it to the President citing corruption issues after FDR decided to retire as President, but apparently they have no such corruption problems.

Mwhahahahaha!!!
 
OP
Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,018
Reaction score
1,180
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz introduced a constitutional amendment Friday that would restrict senators to two six-year terms. It goes into effect after it's passed, so Cruz would still be able to run for two additional Senate terms.

The amendment would also limit members of the House of Representatives to three two-year terms. It's cosponsored by Republican Sens. Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, and David Purdue.

Ted Cruz introduced a term limit bill that would allow just two terms for Senators
--------------------------------------------
I'd be for it as long as it affected everyone that is in the Senate, including Cruz.
This has been in committee for so long (at least 6 years) most in those committees would already have term limited if they actually got it passed. No matter how much they tell us how much they support and the more time passes, the less I believe a damned word they say about it. The only way to impose it is to start showing them the door at the voting booth for those that don't seem to think it's that important by their actions.
 

beagle9

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
23,291
Reaction score
2,961
Points
280
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz introduced a constitutional amendment Friday that would restrict senators to two six-year terms. It goes into effect after it's passed, so Cruz would still be able to run for two additional Senate terms.

The amendment would also limit members of the House of Representatives to three two-year terms. It's cosponsored by Republican Sens. Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, and David Purdue.

Ted Cruz introduced a term limit bill that would allow just two terms for Senators
--------------------------------------------
I'd be for it as long as it affected everyone that is in the Senate, including Cruz.
Your support of anything is a huge red flag.

The thoughts of the Democrats is "YEAH bring it", and then they will have a better chance at taking power more so than they do now is their thinking. It is figured that with the uniting of all these groups, and the MSM in their pocket, and the educational systems secured, that they can win the elections needed to shift the balance of power in their favor in this country.

Becareful what you ask for these days conservatives/republicans, because you just might get slammed, and then what ???
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
54,050
Reaction score
11,712
Points
2,030
Location
In a Republic, actually
We already have term limits – they’re called elections.

The people have the right to elect whomever they want for as long as they want.

And if the people don’t like who is being elected and for how long, they have only themselves to blame, the consequence of their ignorance, apathy, and indifference.

Meaningful political change will only happen when the people get involved at the very local level, not the result of inane top-down ‘solutions’ such as term limits.
 
OP
Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,018
Reaction score
1,180
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
We already have term limits – they’re called elections.

The people have the right to elect whomever they want for as long as they want.

And if the people don’t like who is being elected and for how long, they have only themselves to blame, the consequence of their ignorance, apathy, and indifference.

Meaningful political change will only happen when the people get involved at the very local level, not the result of inane top-down ‘solutions’ such as term limits.
Doesn't work that way. Even when you have a Moscow Mitch, it takes a major scandal like sleeping with the Russians to blast them out of office. We have one around here that introduces bills that are written lock stock and barrel by energy companies. He never reads them but introduces them and backs them tooth and nail even when they are contrary to our best interests. We can't get rid of his butt because just about the time we get ready, he ends up with tons of cash both from the RNC and the Pacs and he lies about his opponents at such a high rate that that is all you end up seeing. And the local News goes apeshit with his coverage and it's all positive and freezes out his opponent.

We need term limits to get rid of this behavior.
 

okfine

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2019
Messages
5,069
Reaction score
1,305
Points
90
Location
805
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz introduced a constitutional amendment Friday that would restrict senators to two six-year terms. It goes into effect after it's passed, so Cruz would still be able to run for two additional Senate terms.

The amendment would also limit members of the House of Representatives to three two-year terms. It's cosponsored by Republican Sens. Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, and David Purdue.

Ted Cruz introduced a term limit bill that would allow just two terms for Senators
--------------------------------------------
I'd be for it as long as it affected everyone that is in the Senate, including Cruz.
This has been in committee for so long (at least 6 years) most in those committees would already have term limited if they actually got it passed. No matter how much they tell us how much they support and the more time passes, the less I believe a damned word they say about it. The only way to impose it is to start showing them the door at the voting booth for those that don't seem to think it's that important by their actions.
It would be a start. 2 four year terms like the President. No more. Voting is the best way. Good or bad.
 
OP
Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,018
Reaction score
1,180
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz introduced a constitutional amendment Friday that would restrict senators to two six-year terms. It goes into effect after it's passed, so Cruz would still be able to run for two additional Senate terms.

The amendment would also limit members of the House of Representatives to three two-year terms. It's cosponsored by Republican Sens. Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, and David Purdue.

Ted Cruz introduced a term limit bill that would allow just two terms for Senators
--------------------------------------------
I'd be for it as long as it affected everyone that is in the Senate, including Cruz.
This has been in committee for so long (at least 6 years) most in those committees would already have term limited if they actually got it passed. No matter how much they tell us how much they support and the more time passes, the less I believe a damned word they say about it. The only way to impose it is to start showing them the door at the voting booth for those that don't seem to think it's that important by their actions.
It would be a start. 2 four year terms like the President. No more. Voting is the best way. Good or bad.
Voting doesn't cut it. Unless you vote at the State Level and force your State Government to pass a Continental Congress law to that effect. It can't be put on any ballot. That was already tried and was tossed out by SCOTUS years ago. So you have to vote state legislators not Federal. Federal can propose it but in the end, it must be done by the States which causes a change to the Constitution of the United States. And there is Millions spent each year at state levels to prevent this. State Officials are a lot cheaper to buy than Federal ones.
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
66,458
Reaction score
12,989
Points
2,210
Location
Politics don't make me emotional.
Good luck, Senator.

This shallow "elections are term limits" argument is a farce, as it completely ignores the inherent advantages an incumbent has over any challenger, most obviously being the opportunities and motivations they have to build, nurture and expand their power/influence base.

Until we change the rules under which these people operate, they will continue to abuse them. Obviously.
.
 
OP
Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,018
Reaction score
1,180
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
Good luck, Senator.

This shallow "elections are term limits" argument is a farce, as it completely ignores the inherent advantages an incumbent has over any challenger, most obviously being the opportunities and motivations they have to build, nurture and expand their power/influence base.

Until we change the rules under which these people operate, they will continue to abuse them. Obviously.
.
And again, that is done at the state level. First, clean up your own state. Then pass an amendment for the Continental Congress and get it passed by 38 state governments. Poof, it's a law. The problem is, until you clean up your every level of state and city government, you'll never get this passed. The Trough may be smaller but the buyout costs less.
 

beagle9

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
23,291
Reaction score
2,961
Points
280
We already have term limits – they’re called elections.

The people have the right to elect whomever they want for as long as they want.

And if the people don’t like who is being elected and for how long, they have only themselves to blame, the consequence of their ignorance, apathy, and indifference.

Meaningful political change will only happen when the people get involved at the very local level, not the result of inane top-down ‘solutions’ such as term limits.
Doesn't work that way. Even when you have a Moscow Mitch, it takes a major scandal like sleeping with the Russians to blast them out of office. We have one around here that introduces bills that are written lock stock and barrel by energy companies. He never reads them but introduces them and backs them tooth and nail even when they are contrary to our best interests. We can't get rid of his butt because just about the time we get ready, he ends up with tons of cash both from the RNC and the Pacs and he lies about his opponents at such a high rate that that is all you end up seeing. And the local News goes apeshit with his coverage and it's all positive and freezes out his opponent.

We need term limits to get rid of this behavior.
Just as I figured, you need term limits in order to shift the balance of power into your Democrat favor. Then you figure that if it can be done in this way, then it can be worked out to keep that power in one way or another. Otherwise you figure that the balance and/or favor that is found in the liberal voters, has already changed into the democrats favor, but you aren't comfortable with that as of yet, so let's dismantle the current electorial college system in order to somehow find total liberal monopolized voting power, and this would be by a select few into your favor eh ??
 
OP
Daryl Hunt

Daryl Hunt

Your Worst Nightmare
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2014
Messages
16,018
Reaction score
1,180
Points
290
Location
O.D. (Stands for Out Dere
We already have term limits – they’re called elections.

The people have the right to elect whomever they want for as long as they want.

And if the people don’t like who is being elected and for how long, they have only themselves to blame, the consequence of their ignorance, apathy, and indifference.

Meaningful political change will only happen when the people get involved at the very local level, not the result of inane top-down ‘solutions’ such as term limits.
Doesn't work that way. Even when you have a Moscow Mitch, it takes a major scandal like sleeping with the Russians to blast them out of office. We have one around here that introduces bills that are written lock stock and barrel by energy companies. He never reads them but introduces them and backs them tooth and nail even when they are contrary to our best interests. We can't get rid of his butt because just about the time we get ready, he ends up with tons of cash both from the RNC and the Pacs and he lies about his opponents at such a high rate that that is all you end up seeing. And the local News goes apeshit with his coverage and it's all positive and freezes out his opponent.

We need term limits to get rid of this behavior.
Just as I figured, you need term limits in order to shift the balance of power into your Democrat favor. Then you figure that if it can be done in this way, then it can be worked out to keep that power in one way or another. Otherwise you figure that the balance and/or favor that is found in the liberal voters, has already changed into the democrats favor, but you aren't comfortable with that as of yet, so let's dismantle the current electorial college system in order to somehow find total liberal monopolized voting power, and this would be by a select few into your favor eh ??
There you go playing partisan BS. It works both ways. If you have a Dem working for the other types of corporations that they shouldn't, having the left wing lobbyists write the bills that the congress critter introduces that they dont' read and really don't understand other than "I support it", what's the difference? We aren't talking about the EC, we are talking about term limiting Congress. Please take your head out your ass.
 

Dan Stubbs

FORGET ---- HELL
Joined
May 4, 2017
Messages
7,068
Reaction score
1,009
Points
290
Location
Some where in the Deep South.
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz introduced a constitutional amendment Friday that would restrict senators to two six-year terms. It goes into effect after it's passed, so Cruz would still be able to run for two additional Senate terms.

The amendment would also limit members of the House of Representatives to three two-year terms. It's cosponsored by Republican Sens. Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, and David Purdue.

Ted Cruz introduced a term limit bill that would allow just two terms for Senators
--------------------------------------------
I'd be for it as long as it affected everyone that is in the Senate, including Cruz.
This has been in committee for so long (at least 6 years) most in those committees would already have term limited if they actually got it passed. No matter how much they tell us how much they support and the more time passes, the less I believe a damned word they say about it. The only way to impose it is to start showing them the door at the voting booth for those that don't seem to think it's that important by their actions.
It would be a start. 2 four year terms like the President. No more. Voting is the best way. Good or bad.
Voting doesn't cut it. Unless you vote at the State Level and force your State Government to pass a Continental Congress law to that effect. It can't be put on any ballot. That was already tried and was tossed out by SCOTUS years ago. So you have to vote state legislators not Federal. Federal can propose it but in the end, it must be done by the States which causes a change to the Constitution of the United States. And there is Millions spent each year at state levels to prevent this. State Officials are a lot cheaper to buy than Federal ones.
Soros would like this never to pass, the ones he has in office he wants them in office and to stay there. Besides he has shifted his money into local elections mostly the governors race and the DA s office and judges.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top