• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

75% Prefer Term Limits - Do you?

Do you support defined term limits?


  • Total voters
    45
Absolutely.

But I don't think it would have as much impact as some believe. I would love to see them put an end to Lobbying, especially funded lobbying, except in the case of individuals seeking aid from Congress.
 
No, I think the voters should decide. This would diminish the power of the people.
 
Because as of now, "playing ball" with big business in order to get the funding to be re-elected is exactly what the problem is.

I happen to prefer a government that is for the people, by the people, and not something that is ruled by an elite class of politicians that see all of this as "us vs. them"
Do you believe that influence would decrease simply from term limits?

If anything, I think it would increase the problem. Lobbyists would focus on "up and coming" newbies instead of incumbents, and said newbies would be more naive and susceptible to influence. They would be virtually "hand chosen".

If we want to achieve the goal of what you think term limits would do, the more effective route would be major campaign finance reform. My preferred method is "Can't vote... can't contribute.", meaning that unless you are a legal aged actual living breathing citizen who has the ability to actually cast a legal vote, then you cannot contribute money to any candidate or campaign. Period.
 
Do you believe that influence would decrease simply from term limits?

If anything, I think it would increase the problem. Lobbyists would focus on "up and coming" newbies instead of incumbents, and said newbies would be more naive and susceptible to influence. They would be virtually "hand chosen".

If we want to achieve the goal of what you think term limits would do, the more effective route would be major campaign finance reform. My preferred method is "Can't vote... can't contribute.", meaning that unless you are a legal aged actual living breathing citizen who has the ability to actually cast a legal vote, then you cannot contribute money to any candidate or campaign. Period.

I don't think there should be campaign contributions allowed at all. I think each candidate should be given an advertisement/campaigning voucher. The payment to say, the TV channel for the ad, would be a tax break for the amount.

It should also be illegal for them to make a single cent more than their paycheck while in office.

That way every candidate is on equal footing, lobbying is neutered, and it's not just the rich who can run for office.
 
With our current 2 party system, I'd hate to see one party run the same guy up over and over. I honestly believe the Dems would run Pres Obama up there every 4 years for the next 20 years lol. Of course, maybe we could have seen a GWB vs BHO Presidential debate. That woulda been awesome.:2razz:
 
Simple enough to do. Vote the bastards out. If 75 % of the people support term limits how is it the toss pots continue to get re-elected?
 
I don't think there should be campaign contributions allowed at all. I think each candidate should be given an advertisement/campaigning voucher. The payment to say, the TV channel for the ad, would be a tax break for the amount.

It should also be illegal for them to make a single cent more than their paycheck while in office.

That way every candidate is on equal footing, lobbying is neutered, and it's not just the rich who can run for office.
Would you prohibit people from spending their own money? It does give an advantage to "the rich", but I would not prohibit that.

I am fine with individual people (living breathing human entities) contributing, but if it were my way there would be restrictions: 1) Must live in same district, i.e. a person living in Texas could not give to a candidate in Florida. They could only give to candidates that will be on their general election ballot. 2) Full and immediate public disclosure, listing name and amount. This is public office, and should be 100% public. No privacy concerns. You want privacy? Keep your money to yourself then.
 
Would you prohibit people from spending their own money? It does give an advantage to "the rich", but I would not prohibit that.

I am fine with individual people (living breathing human entities) contributing, but if it were my way there would be restrictions: 1) Must live in same district, i.e. a person living in Texas could not give to a candidate in Florida. They could only give to candidates that will be on their general election ballot. 2) Full and immediate public disclosure, listing name and amount. This is public office, and should be 100% public. No privacy concerns. You want privacy? Keep your money to yourself then.

Yes, I would. A candidate would not be able to advertise or campaign past the amount of his voucher. This would also be a pretty good test of their fiscal responsibility, and who can stretch their funds to do more.

You say you want people to be able to donate, but not companies. So why can't a company just give the money to a person so that person can donate it? We need to get money out of our politics period.
 
Yes, I would. A candidate would not be able to advertise or campaign past the amount of his voucher. This would also be a pretty good test of their fiscal responsibility, and who can stretch their funds to do more.

You say you want people to be able to donate, but not companies. So why can't a company just give the money to a person so that person can donate it? We need to get money out of our politics period.
They could. There is no panacea in any proposal. Each one will have pros and cons. As long as humans have existed humans have attempted to skirt the rules and laws. The only thing you can do is make that illegal, make the top people directly criminally responsible, then actually enforce it if/when it does happen.
 
Simple enough to do. Vote the bastards out. If 75 % of the people support term limits how is it the toss pots continue to get re-elected?

Low interest in primaries coupled with a very large percentage of the population that won't vote for the other party.
 
They could. There is no panacea in any proposal. Each one will have pros and cons. As long as humans have existed humans have attempted to skirt the rules and laws. The only thing you can do is make that illegal, make the top people directly criminally responsible, then actually enforce it if/when it does happen.

What the hell does transparency matter if candidate A had Warren Buffet give him 100 million, and candidate B had Bill Gates give him 100 million? Either way, both candidates are now in their pockets.

I personally don't like my politicians to be bought, but to each his own.
 
I'm a pessimist on this particular matter. I observe that our Congress is nearly totally corrupt, in other words, bought and sold. It takes some time to set up and make functional channels of bribery, blackmail, coercion, charitable contributions, etc. and those are the funding sources for our Senators and Legislators. Even an honest politician probably succumbs after a few years just due to his proximity to the constant temptation. One term anything is a solution. The bribers and manipulators have to start all over again to get their Congressman in their pocket. It is the initial inertia in any endeavor that is difficult to overcome. We put the crooks back at step one at every election. Of course, if, like currently, we don't prosecute the ones that are caught, "too big to prosecute," like banks and "too big to fail," then our system of justice is a failed system. Couple that with torture, electronic eavesdropping, constant war as good business, Military Justice for renditioned (kidnapped), tortured inmates at Guantanamo, judicial harrassment of journalists (Julian Assange), ad infinitum and it is a serious indictment of the status quo. It's past time to do something!
 
I almost always vote against the incumbent. I'm registered Independent and I pretty much vote that way.
 
I'm a pessimist on this particular matter. I observe that our Congress is nearly totally corrupt, in other words, bought and sold. It takes some time to set up and make functional channels of bribery, blackmail, coercion, charitable contributions, etc. and those are the funding sources for our Senators and Legislators. Even an honest politician probably succumbs after a few years just due to his proximity to the constant temptation. One term anything is a solution. The bribers and manipulators have to start all over again to get their Congressman in their pocket. It is the initial inertia in any endeavor that is difficult to overcome. We put the crooks back at step one at every election. Of course, if, like currently, we don't prosecute the ones that are caught, "too big to prosecute," like banks and "too big to fail," then our system of justice is a failed system. Couple that with torture, electronic eavesdropping, constant war as good business, Military Justice for renditioned (kidnapped), tortured inmates at Guantanamo, judicial harrassment of journalists (Julian Assange), ad infinitum and it is a serious indictment of the status quo. It's past time to do something!

Well said, Dave. Basically, if elected officials aren't whores they soon become whores. The system is FUBARed and the system damn sure isn't going to fix the system.
 
For president...yes. All others...no. Well..not really. We DO have term limits. 2 year terms for congressmen (I would like to see that change to every 4 years-get us out of this idiotic perpetual reelection cycle) and 6 year terms for senators. Where politicians represent their constituents well the choice of the people should not be limited.
 
No, I can speak form a country who does not have any we have had prime minsters who have served more than two mandates, five in fact. If the people still want them to lead the country after 8 years so be it.
 
Last edited:
We have term limits. They are called periodic elections.
 
What the hell does transparency matter if candidate A had Warren Buffet give him 100 million, and candidate B had Bill Gates give him 100 million? Either way, both candidates are now in their pockets.

I personally don't like my politicians to be bought, but to each his own.
The people's right to participate is more important. Besides, they're only "in their pockets" if said candidate elected. This is where immediate full disclosure would help. Voters would know who contributed and how much, and would then be able to make their own (hopefully) informed decisions. Freedom of choice, what a concept!

In my ideal world, campaign contributions would only be allowed between 90 days to 30 days prior to the election. No last-minute shenanigans, and no "off season" backdoor giving when nobody is looking.

Also, money is not always a winning factor. Example: Michael Huffington (1994 California Senatorial election) and Linda McMahon (two Senate races).
 
The people's right to participate is more important. Besides, they're only "in their pockets" if said candidate elected. This is where immediate full disclosure would help. Voters would know who contributed and how much, and would then be able to make their own (hopefully) informed decisions. Freedom of choice, what a concept!

In my ideal world, campaign contributions would only be allowed between 90 days to 30 days prior to the election. No last-minute shenanigans, and no "off season" backdoor giving when nobody is looking.

Also, money is not always a winning factor. Example: Michael Huffington (1994 California Senatorial election) and Linda McMahon (two Senate races).

All politicians are taking massive amounts of money from lobbyists. It is absolutely irrelevant if you know who your politician's puppetmaster is if he's still a puppet. What you're suggesting will do absolutely nothing to stop them.
 
All politicians are taking massive amounts of money from lobbyists. It is absolutely irrelevant if you know who your politician's puppetmaster is if he's still a puppet. What you're suggesting will do absolutely nothing to stop them.
A citizen's right to participate is still more important.

And we disagree on what the effect would be. All your idea would do is push the money underground and out of sight, which is worse.
 
A citizen's right to participate is still more important.

And we disagree on what the effect would be. All your idea would do is push the money underground and out of sight, which is worse.

You have a right to:
- Vote
- Picket
- Shout from the mountaintops who the best candidate is

You don't have a right to:
- Buy candidates because you have a lot of money

See the difference? Perhaps you could quote the section of the constitution or bill of rights that grants the right to buy politicians.
 
You have a right to:
- Vote
- Picket
- Shout from the mountaintops who the best candidate is

You don't have a right to:
- Buy candidates because you have a lot of money

See the difference? Perhaps you could quote the section of the constitution or bill of rights that grants the right to buy politicians.
Oh, look, a shiny penny! :roll:

There is no difference to see. As far as I'm concerned you have just acknowledged that you're on the ropes, and know it, but would never admit it. You've trotted out the standard "quote me in the Constitution" strawman. Contrary to some people's desires or perceptions, the Constitution and Bill of Rights aren't the definitive be-all-and-end-all of what is allowed and what is not. (You probably know that, too, but acknowledgement would be inconvenient)

Attempt at distraction due to lack of a better argument dismissed.
 
Oh, look, a shiny penny! :roll:

There is no difference to see. As far as I'm concerned you have just acknowledged that you're on the ropes, and know it, but would never admit it. You've trotted out the standard "quote me in the Constitution" strawman. Contrary to some people's desires or perceptions, the Constitution and Bill of Rights aren't the definitive be-all-and-end-all of what is allowed and what is not. (You probably know that, too, but acknowledgement would be inconvenient)

Attempt at distraction due to lack of a better argument dismissed.

I gave you a ridiculous response for your ridiculous claim that it's a right to be able to buy politicians.
 
No. Term limits are pointless. Whats the point of term limits? Having to go through an election is a challenge and if the people voted for said candidate why sould a term limit hold back the will of the people?
 
Back
Top Bottom