Trump wants Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits!!

[Camp]

If you were looking for a last minute excuse to vote for Trump THIS IS IT!!!

This country needs a permanent mechanism to rid ourselves of career politicians. This is the only way!

And by the way, save me the smarmy "we-have-term-limits-it's-called-the-ballot-box" stupid mindless comeback.


Trump Proposes Term Limits for Congress to ‘Drain the Swamp’

Donald Trump called for term limits for members of Congress on Tuesday, saying it would help "drain the swamp" in Washington.

"If I am elected president, I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress," Trump said at a rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado, to a roar of approval from the audience.

He didn’t spell out the maximum number of terms he would propose for members of the U.S. House and Senate. The proposal faces potentially insurmountable obstacles. A federal constitutional amendment would be required to impose term limits, and thus far Congress has lacked the votes to send a proposal to the states for ratification.

Trump Proposes Term Limits for Congress to ‘Drain the Swamp’

Damned good idea since no one was ever supposed to make a living being a politician in Congress.

Says who? Prove your opinion, or at least show some minimum evidence that your idea has merit.

 

[jon_berzerk]

If you were looking for a last minute excuse to vote for Trump THIS IS IT!!!

This country needs a permanent mechanism to rid ourselves of career politicians. This is the only way!

And by the way, save me the smarmy "we-have-term-limits-it's-called-the-ballot-box" stupid mindless comeback.


Trump Proposes Term Limits for Congress to ‘Drain the Swamp’

Donald Trump called for term limits for members of Congress on Tuesday, saying it would help "drain the swamp" in Washington.

"If I am elected president, I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress," Trump said at a rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado, to a roar of approval from the audience.

He didn’t spell out the maximum number of terms he would propose for members of the U.S. House and Senate. The proposal faces potentially insurmountable obstacles. A federal constitutional amendment would be required to impose term limits, and thus far Congress has lacked the votes to send a proposal to the states for ratification.

Trump Proposes Term Limits for Congress to ‘Drain the Swamp’

--LOL

moonbat brook baldwin of cnn

thinks trump is crazy because

we already have term limits in congress

--LOL

 

[Baron]

That's a very good idea. USA will getting rid of corrupted career politicians who know nothing and can nothing except lying and stealing.

The US will be replacing experienced politicians with neophytes

Try that the next time you go for surgery. Sorry Doctor, but you have been a surgeon for ten years already. Lets give someone else a chance

What can do professional politicians?
Nothing.
Better more guys like Trump, Reagan etc. in politic who were very successful in their former occupations instead of looser and liars.

Then let them convince voters why they are better suited for the position than someone who has been doing it successfully for 20 years

Trump is already convincing voters....
Know-Nothing-Professional-Politicainas already organized a Freemason mafia to silence and to kick-out any independent politician. The entirely system is highly corrupted and rigged, therefore it must be changed.

What makes you think the system can't be rigged for a political rookie? Especially one with billions of dollars to spend on himself?

Trump paid himself his company, Killary paid nothing own, only donations.
Trump is free in his decisions, Killary depends on donors.
That's difference.

 

[rightwinger]

Somebody stop me!

I can't stop voting for my Senator

Just ignore the entrenchment effect of incumbency, and the permanent political class it creates, in both parties.

Yet, politicians get voted out of office all the time. You claim the voters are incapable of deciding who is best suited to represent them

No, I am saying enough voters are complacent enough to just vote the incumbent without thinking to keep idiots in office for decades.

Some people just feel comfortable with "good ol X", every 2 years, or 6 years. Making them actually look at two new candidates every decade or so might activate some deeper political thought.

Then that is their right. They are also capable of asking...what has he done for me lately? and vote against him

I have been voting for over 40 years. I have voted for candidates of both parties. Many, many times, I have looked at a Congressman or Senator and been pleased at the job they have been doing. Other times, they have worn out their welcome and I have voted against them.

That is my right as a voter

Why do you want to take that away?

 

[martybegan]

Somebody stop me!

I can't stop voting for my Senator

Just ignore the entrenchment effect of incumbency, and the permanent political class it creates, in both parties.

Yet, politicians get voted out of office all the time. You claim the voters are incapable of deciding who is best suited to represent them

No, I am saying enough voters are complacent enough to just vote the incumbent without thinking to keep idiots in office for decades.

Some people just feel comfortable with "good ol X", every 2 years, or 6 years. Making them actually look at two new candidates every decade or so might activate some deeper political thought.

Then that is their right. They are also capable of asking...what has he done for me lately? and vote against him

I have been voting for over 40 years. I have voted for candidates of both parties. Many, many times, I have looked at a Congressman or Senator and been pleased at the job they have been doing. Other times, they have worn out their welcome and I have voted against them.

That is my right as a voter

Why do you want to take that away?

Your right as a voter is to vote, you don't have the right to fill in the bubble of the candidate you want, just the candidates that are presented.

If you wanted to, you could write their name in on the ballot.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Mixed feelings on this.

-Would give more chances for good citizens with good ideas to serve as no person could be entrenched in the position. Limited time could discourage money influence, this could be circumvented though with "teams" lined up to keep that big money going.

-Truly good representatives (yes there are some) would have limited effect with limited time and this would be detrimental.

 

[rightwinger]

Somebody stop me!

I can't stop voting for my Senator

Just ignore the entrenchment effect of incumbency, and the permanent political class it creates, in both parties.

Yet, politicians get voted out of office all the time. You claim the voters are incapable of deciding who is best suited to represent them

No, I am saying enough voters are complacent enough to just vote the incumbent without thinking to keep idiots in office for decades.

Some people just feel comfortable with "good ol X", every 2 years, or 6 years. Making them actually look at two new candidates every decade or so might activate some deeper political thought.

Then that is their right. They are also capable of asking...what has he done for me lately? and vote against him

I have been voting for over 40 years. I have voted for candidates of both parties. Many, many times, I have looked at a Congressman or Senator and been pleased at the job they have been doing. Other times, they have worn out their welcome and I have voted against them.

That is my right as a voter

Why do you want to take that away?

Your right as a voter is to vote, you don't have the right to fill in the bubble of the candidate you want, just the candidates that are presented.

If you wanted to, you could write their name in on the ballot.

So you want to remove my choice because you don't trust my ability to choose the most qualified candidate

You imply that those who have been in office for over 10 years are implicitly corrupt or inept. If they are corrupt, there are laws in place to prosecute them. If they are inept, it is up to me, the voter to decide....not some arbitrary term limit

 

[martybegan]

Just ignore the entrenchment effect of incumbency, and the permanent political class it creates, in both parties.

Yet, politicians get voted out of office all the time. You claim the voters are incapable of deciding who is best suited to represent them

No, I am saying enough voters are complacent enough to just vote the incumbent without thinking to keep idiots in office for decades.

Some people just feel comfortable with "good ol X", every 2 years, or 6 years. Making them actually look at two new candidates every decade or so might activate some deeper political thought.

Then that is their right. They are also capable of asking...what has he done for me lately? and vote against him

I have been voting for over 40 years. I have voted for candidates of both parties. Many, many times, I have looked at a Congressman or Senator and been pleased at the job they have been doing. Other times, they have worn out their welcome and I have voted against them.

That is my right as a voter

Why do you want to take that away?

Your right as a voter is to vote, you don't have the right to fill in the bubble of the candidate you want, just the candidates that are presented.

If you wanted to, you could write their name in on the ballot.

So you want to remove my choice because you don't trust my ability to choose the most qualified candidate

You imply that those who have been in office for over 10 years are implicitly corrupt or inept. If they are corrupt, there are laws in place to prosecute them. If they are inept, it is up to me, the voter to decide....not some arbitrary term limit

I don't trust the complacency of masses of voters. A person may be smart, but people are idiots.

And term limits are applied all over the place, and are supported by a large amount of voters.

That the entrenched politicians don't like them is indicator #1 that they are a good idea.

 

[Claudette]

If you were looking for a last minute excuse to vote for Trump THIS IS IT!!!

This country needs a permanent mechanism to rid ourselves of career politicians. This is the only way!

And by the way, save me the smarmy "we-have-term-limits-it's-called-the-ballot-box" stupid mindless comeback.


Trump Proposes Term Limits for Congress to ‘Drain the Swamp’

Donald Trump called for term limits for members of Congress on Tuesday, saying it would help "drain the swamp" in Washington.

"If I am elected president, I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress," Trump said at a rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado, to a roar of approval from the audience.

He didn’t spell out the maximum number of terms he would propose for members of the U.S. House and Senate. The proposal faces potentially insurmountable obstacles. A federal constitutional amendment would be required to impose term limits, and thus far Congress has lacked the votes to send a proposal to the states for ratification.

Trump Proposes Term Limits for Congress to ‘Drain the Swamp’

Damned good idea since no one was ever supposed to make a living being a politician in Congress.

Says who? Prove your opinion, or at least show some minimum evidence that your idea has merit.

Says the FF. No one was ever supposed to make a living in Govt. They were supposed to serve six months and then go back to their farm or business. They saw it as a part time job.

Clearly, the delegates of the Constitutional Convention did not consider congressional term limits a serious enough proposal to be considered in the new Constitution in the early days of the republic since serving in Congress was largely seen as a part time job that came secondary to each representatives respective job in their home state (Congress only met part time throughout the year for much of the early history of the United States). In fact, office turnover in Congress did not become a serious issue until the early years of the 20th century when Professor Mark P. Petraca points out that in 1901, the average term of members of the House of Representatives rose above two terms

No one was ever supposed to make a living by being a member of Congress.

 

[Camp]

The US will be replacing experienced politicians with neophytes

Try that the next time you go for surgery. Sorry Doctor, but you have been a surgeon for ten years already. Lets give someone else a chance

What can do professional politicians?
Nothing.
Better more guys like Trump, Reagan etc. in politic who were very successful in their former occupations instead of looser and liars.

Then let them convince voters why they are better suited for the position than someone who has been doing it successfully for 20 years

Trump is already convincing voters....
Know-Nothing-Professional-Politicainas already organized a Freemason mafia to silence and to kick-out any independent politician. The entirely system is highly corrupted and rigged, therefore it must be changed.

What makes you think the system can't be rigged for a political rookie? Especially one with billions of dollars to spend on himself?

Trump paid himself his company, Killary paid nothing own, only donations.
Trump is free in his decisions, Killary depends on donors.
That's difference.

You stupidly believe what you are told by the cult leader and ignore the real facts. You actually believe Trump does not collect donations for his campaign, even though he does it on his campaign website and always has.

 

[rightwinger]

Yet, politicians get voted out of office all the time. You claim the voters are incapable of deciding who is best suited to represent them

No, I am saying enough voters are complacent enough to just vote the incumbent without thinking to keep idiots in office for decades.

Some people just feel comfortable with "good ol X", every 2 years, or 6 years. Making them actually look at two new candidates every decade or so might activate some deeper political thought.

Then that is their right. They are also capable of asking...what has he done for me lately? and vote against him

I have been voting for over 40 years. I have voted for candidates of both parties. Many, many times, I have looked at a Congressman or Senator and been pleased at the job they have been doing. Other times, they have worn out their welcome and I have voted against them.

That is my right as a voter

Why do you want to take that away?

Your right as a voter is to vote, you don't have the right to fill in the bubble of the candidate you want, just the candidates that are presented.

If you wanted to, you could write their name in on the ballot.

So you want to remove my choice because you don't trust my ability to choose the most qualified candidate

You imply that those who have been in office for over 10 years are implicitly corrupt or inept. If they are corrupt, there are laws in place to prosecute them. If they are inept, it is up to me, the voter to decide....not some arbitrary term limit

I don't trust the complacency of masses of voters. A person may be smart, but people are idiots.

And term limits are applied all over the place, and are supported by a large amount of voters.

That the entrenched politicians don't like them is indicator #1 that they are a good idea.

So throw out the Constitution and proclaim that voters are too stupid to decide who is best suited to represent them

Is it complacency to decide that your Senator has done a good job and has earned another 6 years?

 

[martybegan]

No, I am saying enough voters are complacent enough to just vote the incumbent without thinking to keep idiots in office for decades.

Some people just feel comfortable with "good ol X", every 2 years, or 6 years. Making them actually look at two new candidates every decade or so might activate some deeper political thought.

Then that is their right. They are also capable of asking...what has he done for me lately? and vote against him

I have been voting for over 40 years. I have voted for candidates of both parties. Many, many times, I have looked at a Congressman or Senator and been pleased at the job they have been doing. Other times, they have worn out their welcome and I have voted against them.

That is my right as a voter

Why do you want to take that away?

Your right as a voter is to vote, you don't have the right to fill in the bubble of the candidate you want, just the candidates that are presented.

If you wanted to, you could write their name in on the ballot.

So you want to remove my choice because you don't trust my ability to choose the most qualified candidate

You imply that those who have been in office for over 10 years are implicitly corrupt or inept. If they are corrupt, there are laws in place to prosecute them. If they are inept, it is up to me, the voter to decide....not some arbitrary term limit

I don't trust the complacency of masses of voters. A person may be smart, but people are idiots.

And term limits are applied all over the place, and are supported by a large amount of voters.

That the entrenched politicians don't like them is indicator #1 that they are a good idea.

So throw out the Constitution and proclaim that voters are too stupid to decide who is best suited to represent them

Is it complacency to decide that your Senator has done a good job and has earned another 6 years?

No, amend it to set term limits.

And most people don't think enough about voting to "decide", a bunch of them just vote for "who's in"

 

[rightwinger]

Then that is their right. They are also capable of asking...what has he done for me lately? and vote against him

I have been voting for over 40 years. I have voted for candidates of both parties. Many, many times, I have looked at a Congressman or Senator and been pleased at the job they have been doing. Other times, they have worn out their welcome and I have voted against them.

That is my right as a voter

Why do you want to take that away?

Your right as a voter is to vote, you don't have the right to fill in the bubble of the candidate you want, just the candidates that are presented.

If you wanted to, you could write their name in on the ballot.

So you want to remove my choice because you don't trust my ability to choose the most qualified candidate

You imply that those who have been in office for over 10 years are implicitly corrupt or inept. If they are corrupt, there are laws in place to prosecute them. If they are inept, it is up to me, the voter to decide....not some arbitrary term limit

I don't trust the complacency of masses of voters. A person may be smart, but people are idiots.

And term limits are applied all over the place, and are supported by a large amount of voters.

That the entrenched politicians don't like them is indicator #1 that they are a good idea.

So throw out the Constitution and proclaim that voters are too stupid to decide who is best suited to represent them

Is it complacency to decide that your Senator has done a good job and has earned another 6 years?

No, amend it to set term limits.

And most people don't think enough about voting to "decide", a bunch of them just vote for "who's in"

We have trusted the judgment of our voters for over 230 years. It has worked out very well

Our founders rejected your elitism when it comes to voters making decisions

 

[rightwinger]

If voters do not want Congressmen/Senators who have served over 10 years, they can vote against them for that reason.
If they are satisfied with the person representing them, they should be trusted to vote for them

 

[martybegan]

Your right as a voter is to vote, you don't have the right to fill in the bubble of the candidate you want, just the candidates that are presented.

If you wanted to, you could write their name in on the ballot.

So you want to remove my choice because you don't trust my ability to choose the most qualified candidate

You imply that those who have been in office for over 10 years are implicitly corrupt or inept. If they are corrupt, there are laws in place to prosecute them. If they are inept, it is up to me, the voter to decide....not some arbitrary term limit

I don't trust the complacency of masses of voters. A person may be smart, but people are idiots.

And term limits are applied all over the place, and are supported by a large amount of voters.

That the entrenched politicians don't like them is indicator #1 that they are a good idea.

So throw out the Constitution and proclaim that voters are too stupid to decide who is best suited to represent them

Is it complacency to decide that your Senator has done a good job and has earned another 6 years?

No, amend it to set term limits.

And most people don't think enough about voting to "decide", a bunch of them just vote for "who's in"

We have trusted the judgment of our voters for over 230 years. It has worked out very well

Our founders rejected your elitism when it comes to voters making decisions

If enough people support the concept to amend the constitution, you are out of luck.

And for all your prattling about the "people", what you really want to protect is cronyism and a permanent political class, the typical progressive worship of their "betters", while hoping for more crumbs thrown their way than thrown to others.

 

[Camp]

If you were looking for a last minute excuse to vote for Trump THIS IS IT!!!

This country needs a permanent mechanism to rid ourselves of career politicians. This is the only way!

And by the way, save me the smarmy "we-have-term-limits-it's-called-the-ballot-box" stupid mindless comeback.


Trump Proposes Term Limits for Congress to ‘Drain the Swamp’

Donald Trump called for term limits for members of Congress on Tuesday, saying it would help "drain the swamp" in Washington.

"If I am elected president, I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress," Trump said at a rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado, to a roar of approval from the audience.

He didn’t spell out the maximum number of terms he would propose for members of the U.S. House and Senate. The proposal faces potentially insurmountable obstacles. A federal constitutional amendment would be required to impose term limits, and thus far Congress has lacked the votes to send a proposal to the states for ratification.

Trump Proposes Term Limits for Congress to ‘Drain the Swamp’

--LOL

moonbat brook baldwin of cnn

thinks trump is crazy because

we already have term limits in congress

--LOL

There are term limits in Congress. You and Trump just don't like the way the term limits are determined by the voting public. You who profess to want less government and government regulation want to regulate one of out most important and significant rights, voting. You want to restrict who has the right to vote and who we are allowed to vote for.

 

[Skull Pilot]

No, I am saying enough voters are complacent enough to just vote the incumbent without thinking to keep idiots in office for decades.

Some people just feel comfortable with "good ol X", every 2 years, or 6 years. Making them actually look at two new candidates every decade or so might activate some deeper political thought.

Then that is their right. They are also capable of asking...what has he done for me lately? and vote against him

I have been voting for over 40 years. I have voted for candidates of both parties. Many, many times, I have looked at a Congressman or Senator and been pleased at the job they have been doing. Other times, they have worn out their welcome and I have voted against them.

That is my right as a voter

Why do you want to take that away?

Your right as a voter is to vote, you don't have the right to fill in the bubble of the candidate you want, just the candidates that are presented.

If you wanted to, you could write their name in on the ballot.

So you want to remove my choice because you don't trust my ability to choose the most qualified candidate

You imply that those who have been in office for over 10 years are implicitly corrupt or inept. If they are corrupt, there are laws in place to prosecute them. If they are inept, it is up to me, the voter to decide....not some arbitrary term limit

I don't trust the complacency of masses of voters. A person may be smart, but people are idiots.

And term limits are applied all over the place, and are supported by a large amount of voters.

That the entrenched politicians don't like them is indicator #1 that they are a good idea.

So throw out the Constitution and proclaim that voters are too stupid to decide who is best suited to represent them

Is it complacency to decide that your Senator has done a good job and has earned another 6 years?

We limit the president's terms so why not Congress's?

I've always been torn on Congressional Term limits. I can see both sides and I can't really decide if one position is better than the other

 

[martybegan]

Then that is their right. They are also capable of asking...what has he done for me lately? and vote against him

I have been voting for over 40 years. I have voted for candidates of both parties. Many, many times, I have looked at a Congressman or Senator and been pleased at the job they have been doing. Other times, they have worn out their welcome and I have voted against them.

That is my right as a voter

Why do you want to take that away?

Your right as a voter is to vote, you don't have the right to fill in the bubble of the candidate you want, just the candidates that are presented.

If you wanted to, you could write their name in on the ballot.

So you want to remove my choice because you don't trust my ability to choose the most qualified candidate

You imply that those who have been in office for over 10 years are implicitly corrupt or inept. If they are corrupt, there are laws in place to prosecute them. If they are inept, it is up to me, the voter to decide....not some arbitrary term limit

I don't trust the complacency of masses of voters. A person may be smart, but people are idiots.

And term limits are applied all over the place, and are supported by a large amount of voters.

That the entrenched politicians don't like them is indicator #1 that they are a good idea.

So throw out the Constitution and proclaim that voters are too stupid to decide who is best suited to represent them

Is it complacency to decide that your Senator has done a good job and has earned another 6 years?

We limit the president's terms so why not Congress's?

I've always been torn on Congressional Term limits. I can see both sides and I can't really decide if one position is better than the other

It doesn't have to be 10 years, I would be good with anywhere from 10-20. The issue is complacency, pure and simple. People need to have an actual choice from time to time, not "same old same old" vs new and unknown.

 

[TooTall]

If you were looking for a last minute excuse to vote for Trump THIS IS IT!!!

This country needs a permanent mechanism to rid ourselves of career politicians. This is the only way!

And by the way, save me the smarmy "we-have-term-limits-it's-called-the-ballot-box" stupid mindless comeback.


Trump Proposes Term Limits for Congress to ‘Drain the Swamp’

Donald Trump called for term limits for members of Congress on Tuesday, saying it would help "drain the swamp" in Washington.

"If I am elected president, I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress," Trump said at a rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado, to a roar of approval from the audience.

He didn’t spell out the maximum number of terms he would propose for members of the U.S. House and Senate. The proposal faces potentially insurmountable obstacles. A federal constitutional amendment would be required to impose term limits, and thus far Congress has lacked the votes to send a proposal to the states for ratification.

Trump Proposes Term Limits for Congress to ‘Drain the Swamp’

I guess you figure that when the founders wrote our constitution they were being as you say, "mindless and stupid".

Thomas Jefferson had some very specific ideas on term limits.


"I proposed the representatives (and not the people) should choose the [State] Senate... To make them independent I had proposed that they should hold their places for nine years and then go out (one third every three years) and be incapable forever of being re-elected to that house. My idea was that if they might be re-elected, they would be casting their eye forward to the period of election (however distant) and be currying favor with the electors and consequently dependent on them. My reason for fixing them in office for a term of years rather than for life was that they might have an idea that they were at a certain period to return into the mass of the people and become the governed instead of the governor, which might still keep alive that regard to the public good that otherwise they might perhaps be induced by their independence to forget." --Thomas Jefferson to E. Pendleton, 1776.


"General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after eight years. I shall follow it, and a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit to anyone after a while who shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Taylor, 1805.

 

[rightwinger]

So you want to remove my choice because you don't trust my ability to choose the most qualified candidate

You imply that those who have been in office for over 10 years are implicitly corrupt or inept. If they are corrupt, there are laws in place to prosecute them. If they are inept, it is up to me, the voter to decide....not some arbitrary term limit

I don't trust the complacency of masses of voters. A person may be smart, but people are idiots.

And term limits are applied all over the place, and are supported by a large amount of voters.

That the entrenched politicians don't like them is indicator #1 that they are a good idea.

So throw out the Constitution and proclaim that voters are too stupid to decide who is best suited to represent them

Is it complacency to decide that your Senator has done a good job and has earned another 6 years?

No, amend it to set term limits.

And most people don't think enough about voting to "decide", a bunch of them just vote for "who's in"

We have trusted the judgment of our voters for over 230 years. It has worked out very well

Our founders rejected your elitism when it comes to voters making decisions

If enough people support the concept to amend the constitution, you are out of luck.

And for all your prattling about the "people", what you really want to protect is cronyism and a permanent political class, the typical progressive worship of their "betters", while hoping for more crumbs thrown their way than thrown to others.

There is not a permanent political class

They must convince the voters every two years (House) and six years (Senate)
That is, by definition, a term limit