• 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!

Do you favor Congressional term limits?

Do you favor Congressional term limits?


  • Total voters
    25

Tothian

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
555
Reaction score
104
Location
New Jersey, United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Yes
No
Other

There are a few pro's and con's to each.

If you vote Yes - if you favor congressional term limits - you want to keep out the incumbents - so that they aren't more focused on staying in power - and that each congressperson knows that their stay in Congress is only temporary. If you say yes to this - my question to you would be, do you favor one term, or a certain amount of years, or what?

If you vote No - because for some people it's just their calling - and the longer they're in there, the more experience they'll have to deal with matters - and also it lets the voters have a choice in re-electing them if they want

If you vote Other - that's if you're unsure or if you think something that isn't simply yes or no. Like if you think they should be temporary term limited, and then after being out of office, being re-eligible after being out of office for a period of time, or something like that.
 
Yes
No
Other

There are a few pro's and con's to each.

If you vote Yes - if you favor congressional term limits - you want to keep out the incumbents - so that they aren't more focused on staying in power - and that each congressperson knows that their stay in Congress is only temporary. If you say yes to this - my question to you would be, do you favor one term, or a certain amount of years, or what?

If you vote No - because for some people it's just their calling - and the longer they're in there, the more experience they'll have to deal with matters - and also it lets the voters have a choice in re-electing them if they want

If you vote Other - that's if you're unsure or if you think something that isn't simply yes or no. Like if you think they should be temporary term limited, and then after being out of office, being re-eligible after being out of office for a period of time, or something like that.
In another thread you tried to tell me what my thoughts on continuing education were. Here you're telling people what they're votes mean to them. What the hell is wrong with you?
 
We already have congressional term limits. The people are capable of voting them out. The 22nd Amendment of the constitution is completely stupid. Why can't we keep a president around if he is doing a good job? I see no reason to add a 28th amendment that says absolutely nothing. We have an election every two years for congress. Their term limit is 2 years. The same goes for the president. His term limit is 4 years. I do not support term limits as you define term limits. I do support the term limits that already exist.
 
I don't support term limits. I don't think they solve any of the problems we have, and it ensures that the rare times we have capable politicians they are quickly gone. Artificial limits aren't going to stop people from voting in politicians exactly like the term limited ones anyway.
 
Yes
No
Other

I support term limits for every elected and appointed office excluding judges.I support them because of the following reasons-

1. Power corrupts.All these elected officials wiping their ass and cleaning out their anus with the Bill of Rights are career politicians.All these politicians selling us down the river and getting us further and further into debt and claiming Oh they didn't read the bill as an excuse for voting for a lousy bill and so on is because of corrupt politicians.

2.Most registered voters are ignorant when it comes to what their elected officials are doing so saying that elections are a form of term limit is ****en idiotic.They would rather spend their free time watching sports, watch some rich step daughter of a has been Olympian is doing, and watch American idol. It is because of these idiotic voters why congress has really low approval rating and a high incumbent election rate.

3.Voters tend to have short attention spans and outrage when it comes to what our elected officials do.An elected official can literally come in at the start of the term do something to severely piss off the voters and still be reelected next term.
 
Yes
No
Other

There are a few pro's and con's to each.

If you vote Yes - if you favor congressional term limits - you want to keep out the incumbents - so that they aren't more focused on staying in power - and that each congressperson knows that their stay in Congress is only temporary. If you say yes to this - my question to you would be, do you favor one term, or a certain amount of years, or what?

If you vote No - because for some people it's just their calling - and the longer they're in there, the more experience they'll have to deal with matters - and also it lets the voters have a choice in re-electing them if they want

If you vote Other - that's if you're unsure or if you think something that isn't simply yes or no. Like if you think they should be temporary term limited, and then after being out of office, being re-eligible after being out of office for a period of time, or something like that.
I think there should be a term limit. But it should be in conjunction with a policy to prevent a corporate revolving door when they leave. Too often we have somebody get into congress, vote for policies that benefit a specific corporation, then they go to work for that corporation later as a lobbyist and get millions. It corrupts our government.
 
Yes
No
Other

There are a few pro's and con's to each.

If you vote Yes - if you favor congressional term limits - you want to keep out the incumbents - so that they aren't more focused on staying in power - and that each congressperson knows that their stay in Congress is only temporary. If you say yes to this - my question to you would be, do you favor one term, or a certain amount of years, or what?

If you vote No - because for some people it's just their calling - and the longer they're in there, the more experience they'll have to deal with matters - and also it lets the voters have a choice in re-electing them if they want

If you vote Other - that's if you're unsure or if you think something that isn't simply yes or no. Like if you think they should be temporary term limited, and then after being out of office, being re-eligible after being out of office for a period of time, or something like that.




The main con to this whole, time-wasting thread (Which will accomplish nothing.) is that congressional term limits will never happen. Wait and see.

If the voters are unhappy with a particular person in congress they currently have the option of voting for someone else. if, OTH, they like a particular congressperson, they can keep that person in office.

I see no valid reason to change the current, constitutional system which has worked for over two hundred years.

But don't let that stop you from wasting your, and others, time trying to do that.
 
Last edited:
I support term limits for Politicians.....and Judges. No more lifetime appointments. Also all Judges should and politicians over the age of 65 have to be Psych evaluated every 3 years.

My idea was two terms of 5 years. No more than 10. If they can't accomplish anything within a decade. Hit the road jack.....don't come back no more no more. With only the First year speaking for others and playing in elections and the Last year going out. No creating any legislation on the year of walking out the door either. It's see ya.....time for another to be ya.

Although I think it could be done for Congressman too. I say put an end to the election game every two years. Force these douchebags to actually work for the people of their state. Rather than constantly soaking their people for money.

Which that goes for trying to run to some other state just to try and get back into power too. Once done with the Fed and State......they want to serve. Then serve that own community that they were set out to pasture in.
 
I support term limits for Politicians.....and Judges. No more lifetime appointments. Also all Judges should and politicians over the age of 65 have to be Psych evaluated every 3 years.

My idea was two terms of 5 years. No more than 10. If they can't accomplish anything within a decade. Hit the road jack.....don't come back no more no more. With only the First year speaking for others and playing in elections and the Last year going out. No creating any legislation on the year of walking out the door either. It's see ya.....time for another to be ya.

Although I think it could be done for Congressman too. I say put an end to the election game every two years. Force these douchebags to actually work for the people of their state. Rather than constantly soaking their people for money.

Which that goes for trying to run to some other state just to try and get back into power too. Once done with the Fed and State......they want to serve. Then serve that own community that they were set out to pasture in.

Actually the revrese is more likely to be true. If half of their time in office (their entire last term) is in "lame duck" mode that could be worse. Now at least the desire for re-election makes them somewhat hesitant to simply do whatever they want. Voter ignorance is the real problem since getting re-elected requires the support of the majority (or at least a plurality) of the voters.
 
Actually the revrese is more likely to be true. If half of their time in office (their entire last term) is in "lame duck" mode that could be worse. Now at least the desire for re-election makes them somewhat hesitant to simply do whatever they want. Voter ignorance is the real problem since getting re-elected requires the support of the majority (or at least a plurality) of the voters.
It's voter ignorance, and apathy, that makes term limits a waste of time and effort, IMO.

Ok, the incumbents get termed out. Then what? Do we really believe that we'll be presented with fresh new choices and everyone will be a "Mr Smith goes to Washington"-type crusader, and that voters will suddenly be interested in researching the options and make informed decisions? Phfft! No, we'll get choices hand-picked by the parties, and because we don't really know who they are will be more likely to just give up and vote party line.
 
Actually the revrese is more likely to be true. If half of their time in office (their entire last term) is in "lame duck" mode that could be worse. Now at least the desire for re-election makes them somewhat hesitant to simply do whatever they want. Voter ignorance is the real problem since getting re-elected requires the support of the majority (or at least a plurality) of the voters.


Mornin Ttwtt. :2wave: Well I was thinking that they could be a lame duck for Washington DC. Be more about serving the people of their own state going out the door. This way they know if that one did or didn't do anything for them. He has to live with them.....Right?

Not to mention.....we take their time away from the Media and looking to play. Now they have no reason to trapse all across the country and the planet all to endorse someone or party. Or even visit other country leaders. Should be listed down in their Job description so that can't say they weren't told.
 
Yes
No
Other

There are a few pro's and con's to each.

If you vote Yes - if you favor congressional term limits - you want to keep out the incumbents - so that they aren't more focused on staying in power - and that each congressperson knows that their stay in Congress is only temporary. If you say yes to this - my question to you would be, do you favor one term, or a certain amount of years, or what?

If you vote No - because for some people it's just their calling - and the longer they're in there, the more experience they'll have to deal with matters - and also it lets the voters have a choice in re-electing them if they want

If you vote Other - that's if you're unsure or if you think something that isn't simply yes or no. Like if you think they should be temporary term limited, and then after being out of office, being re-eligible after being out of office for a period of time, or something like that.

For a very long time, at least since Reagan I was in favor of term limits. But not today as I do not think they would make any difference. Today our representatives and senators represent their political parties and those who give them all their campaign cash than the people they are suppose to represent. Term limits would replace the name of the individual representative or senator, but not the loyalty shown to party and the faceless moneyed folks behind them over the people who actually vote.

In fact I have come to the conclusion we as a nation would be better off with the repeal of the 22nd amendment which automatically make any president a lame duck the day after the election he won his second term on. I would also like to see the repeal of the 17th amendment also, but that is another story for another thread.
 
I support term limits for Politicians.....and Judges. No more lifetime appointments. Also all Judges should and politicians over the age of 65 have to be Psych evaluated every 3 years.

My idea was two terms of 5 years. No more than 10. If they can't accomplish anything within a decade. Hit the road jack.....don't come back no more no more. With only the First year speaking for others and playing in elections and the Last year going out. No creating any legislation on the year of walking out the door either. It's see ya.....time for another to be ya.

Although I think it could be done for Congressman too. I say put an end to the election game every two years. Force these douchebags to actually work for the people of their state. Rather than constantly soaking their people for money.

Which that goes for trying to run to some other state just to try and get back into power too. Once done with the Fed and State......they want to serve. Then serve that own community that they were set out to pasture in.

You have a good point about the ones over 65 - then again that could easily be corrupted because anyone could just say they're crazy.

As for Congressmen being elected every 2 years - it's a quicker filter for if people don't like who their congressmen are, that they can just vote in new ones every 2 years.

It's the way campaigns are run that are the real problem. If campaigns were run differently, then we could possibly get better candidates.

Perhaps I should make a poll about equal air time for all candidates in an election. Both in primaries AND general elections. THEN the candidates would REALLY have to work for each vote.
 
Today - yes on term limits
Yesterday - no
There are valid arguments for either...
The only thing that is definite is changing the two year house term to four years.
And both campaign and campaign finance reform.
 
Today - yes on term limits
Yesterday - no
There are valid arguments for either...
The only thing that is definite is changing the two year house term to four years.
And both campaign and campaign finance reform.

With all the gerrymandering going on it probably doesn't matter for 90% of House Members whether the terms are 2 years, 4 years, 10 years or for life. As for campaign and campaign finance reform, the SCOTUS has declared money is speech so it would take a constitutional amendment and since all the incumbents receive millions and even tens of millions from those nameless, faceless moneyed people behind the scenes to run their campaigns, you'll never get 2/3rds of the house or senate to approve any type of amendment that is needed.
 
You have a good point about the ones over 65 - then again that could easily be corrupted because anyone could just say they're crazy.

As for Congressmen being elected every 2 years - it's a quicker filter for if people don't like who their congressmen are, that they can just vote in new ones every 2 years.

It's the way campaigns are run that are the real problem. If campaigns were run differently, then we could possibly get better candidates.

Perhaps I should make a poll about equal air time for all candidates in an election. Both in primaries AND general elections. THEN the candidates would REALLY have to work for each vote.

Equal air time, impossible. Money is speech according to the SCOTUS and this not only applies to the campaigns ran by the parties, it also applies to special interests groups, super pacs, advocacy groups, un-named organizations that can run all sort of political ads for or against any candidate or issue.

As for those who do not like their congressman, all the parties do is gerrymander them out of their district. Looking at Cook, Sabato, Rothenburg, etc on their house predictions, they list approximately 210 safe Republican seats and 180 safe Democratic seats. That means come November of next year only 45 seats are in play. But in play doesn't mean the races are competitive, they use the term likely to signify seats that aren't safe or solid, but the seats are not competitive either but may become so in the future, 30 seats fall into this category. That leaves only 15 seats in next years election that are rated tossups or might actually change hands. 15 seats out of 435.

Now this may change as time goes by as perhaps some of those likely seats move into the tossup category, but it is highly unlikely. Read my signature line.
 
I voted other. I support (yes I know this will never happen) a hybrid system of election between our current system and the lottery system of ancient Athens. This would eliminate the need for term limits.
 
Yes
No
Other

There are a few pro's and con's to each.

If you vote Yes - if you favor congressional term limits - you want to keep out the incumbents - so that they aren't more focused on staying in power - and that each congressperson knows that their stay in Congress is only temporary. If you say yes to this - my question to you would be, do you favor one term, or a certain amount of years, or what?

If you vote No - because for some people it's just their calling - and the longer they're in there, the more experience they'll have to deal with matters - and also it lets the voters have a choice in re-electing them if they want

If you vote Other - that's if you're unsure or if you think something that isn't simply yes or no. Like if you think they should be temporary term limited, and then after being out of office, being re-eligible after being out of office for a period of time, or something like that.

If we should ever get a good one, I like to keep her.
 
As it is pretty split i feel ok saying yes, but only to a certain point. People who are in their late 70's and 80's+ should not be in congress, but they should still be allowed to consult. The problem with term limits is that where many of the older politicians hold up what we may call old fashioned views, many people still like those views and that is why they are re-elected so many times. So by cutting a person off from their right to hold office, we not only cutting them off of their constitutional right, but we are forcing people to vote for people who don't always hold their views, just because they have had less terms; Because lets face it people, the politician who we put in office are not always the people who follow our beliefs, but are often the only ones running. So i think that yes their should be a term limit, but it has to be controlled so that people can still vote the way they want to.
 
With all the gerrymandering going on it probably doesn't matter for 90% of House Members whether the terms are 2 years, 4 years, 10 years or for life. As for campaign and campaign finance reform, the SCOTUS has declared money is speech so it would take a constitutional amendment and since all the incumbents receive millions and even tens of millions from those nameless, faceless moneyed people behind the scenes to run their campaigns, you'll never get 2/3rds of the house or senate to approve any type of amendment that is needed.

You could get 2/3 of them to vote for that, and if not, you could build up enough support to vote them out if they don't support that. Don't underestimate using social media and grassroots effort.
 
As it is pretty split i feel ok saying yes, but only to a certain point. People who are in their late 70's and 80's+ should not be in congress, but they should still be allowed to consult. The problem with term limits is that where many of the older politicians hold up what we may call old fashioned views, many people still like those views and that is why they are re-elected so many times. So by cutting a person off from their right to hold office, we not only cutting them off of their constitutional right, but we are forcing people to vote for people who don't always hold their views, just because they have had less terms; Because lets face it people, the politician who we put in office are not always the people who follow our beliefs, but are often the only ones running. So i think that yes their should be a term limit, but it has to be controlled so that people can still vote the way they want to.

There are some important points you bring up here.

Even former House Members & former Senators could still remain in advisory roles to consult current members. To make up for what would be a lack of decades of experience. But still keep the members of Congress NOT there so long that they become corrupted by the power more over time. Yet still be able to have those with experience use their experience to help.

As for those in their 70's or 80's - not all of them are always bad to have. It could depend on their mental state though. But I do think that it's good to have at least some with age in there. Various individuals of various ages could be a voice for people of their own specific generation.
 
We already have congressional term limits. The people are capable of voting them out. The 22nd Amendment of the constitution is completely stupid. Why can't we keep a president around if he is doing a good job? I see no reason to add a 28th amendment that says absolutely nothing. We have an election every two years for congress. Their term limit is 2 years. The same goes for the president. His term limit is 4 years. I do not support term limits as you define term limits. I do support the term limits that already exist.

I am okay with repealing the 28th. I just think it should be fair all around. We should be able to keep a president if we want. But since we can't, I don't think we should be able to keep congressmen or SCOTUS judges either. The 28th should be repealed or expanded but I don't think it should be left as is.
 
You could get 2/3 of them to vote for that, and if not, you could build up enough support to vote them out if they don't support that. Don't underestimate using social media and grassroots effort.

I really do not think so. One problem with all these polls that shows the people are always ready to kick out the entire current congress is most Americans like/love their own congressman, it is the other 434 that are bad/evil. IMO and I have been around a long time, every new campaign finance law passed has seem to make the system more and more corrupt and worked less and less as intended. If you remember back to the 1950's/60's there really was no limits on the amount of money given, but all money was given to the candidates and the political parties. You have no third parties or organizations such as super pacs, money bundlers, no independent political or advocacy ads. Everything was handled by the candidates and parties alone. The candidates and political parties had control, not some outside group or groups.

That control is all in the past now, political parties/candidates can't control all the independent groups out there raising money and running their own ads either for or against. It does seem to me each new campaign finance law has made matters much worse than they were prior to the laws being passed. There is much less accountability now and much more secrecy as to who is running these ads and donating to all these outside groups. Call it the laws of unintended consequences.
 
I really do not think so. One problem with all these polls that shows the people are always ready to kick out the entire current congress is most Americans like/love their own congressman, it is the other 434 that are bad/evil. IMO and I have been around a long time, every new campaign finance law passed has seem to make the system more and more corrupt and worked less and less as intended. If you remember back to the 1950's/60's there really was no limits on the amount of money given, but all money was given to the candidates and the political parties. You have no third parties or organizations such as super pacs, money bundlers, no independent political or advocacy ads. Everything was handled by the candidates and parties alone. The candidates and political parties had control, not some outside group or groups.

That control is all in the past now, political parties/candidates can't control all the independent groups out there raising money and running their own ads either for or against. It does seem to me each new campaign finance law has made matters much worse than they were prior to the laws being passed. There is much less accountability now and much more secrecy as to who is running these ads and donating to all these outside groups. Call it the laws of unintended consequences.
That is the biggest disconnect, IMO.
 
Back
Top Bottom