- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 555
- Reaction score
- 104
- Location
- New Jersey, United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
How do you feel about term limits for Senate and Congress?
Yes, just as they now do, they are called winning re-election.
Yes, just as they now do, they are called winning re-election.
How do you feel about term limits for Senate and Congress?
Alright. So what reasons do you like this? (I'm not criticizing your opinion, just curious as to your reasons)
not a big fan of the idea.... but I wouldn't fight against it if it happened.
I rather like the idea of being able to choose my representation... i'm not a fan of a statute limiting that choice arbitrarily.
that's the funny thing about term limits... everybody is in favor of them when they don't like the congresscritter... but nobody thinks about a congresscritter you actually like and want to keep around.
if we had congresscritters that were worth a damn, i would oppose term limits more ardently... but we don't, so i don't...every stinking one of them sucks.
OTJ training every two years makes so much sense.
A 3-year term makes more sense--since nothing happens in the first or last year of the 2-year term .
otherwise we will just get more of the same two party system that only cares about itself and it's own wallets and power, and as time goes by, we will see more and more worthless 'officials' in office.
How do you feel about term limits for Senate and Congress?
the founders created a system, of only 2 years for each person of the house, want to remove them vote him out!
the senate was a different matter, the senators were picked by the legislature of states, ..it has been ONLY after the 17th amendment you have long term serving senators.
repeal the 17th to put government back in balance
Okay. I've revised my idea. House term should be three years, you can go over three house terms of two Senate terms, but you cannot remain a lobbyist in D.C. once you retire if you go over (like 52% of all congressmen do nowadays), and you cannot serve consecutive terms after that point. I know, you'll inevitably end up getting rid of the one or two decent politicians by doing that, but I guarantee you will save a hell of a lot more on all the corrupt jerkoffs you get out of the system.
The term 'career politician' should not exist, thus such people should not exist. Yeah, some will say 'just vote them out', but due to gerrymandering and buying off votes, this is often next to impossible. And some will say 'but what about good politicians?' Oh well… we are a nation of 300+ million people, certainly we can come with with a couple hundred here and there that are 'good' and would follow the Constitution.
Power corrupts. Even the most well intentioned will eventually be corrupted in DC, thus get in, do good work, get out. Otherwise we will just get more of the same two party system that only cares about itself and it's own wallets and power, and as time goes by, we will see more and more worthless 'officials' in office.
That's very true about the Senators! Thank you for sharing that! May 13, 1912 is when the people directly elected their Senators. I forget if they had different rules for vacancies than they do now. As in, the legislature would just vote in someone else, rather than a Governor filling in a vacancy, and then having a special election.
As for voting them out, the problem is that people don't always vote for the same person in a primary and general election. Perhaps their primary candidate didn't win. They might vote for someone once and they might even win and do a great job, but it does not always mean that they are the only person who can do that job.
Intelligence is one thing. They can learn from other experienced former Congresspersons, former Senators, and such. But, it's the decision making that is most important. Do they vote for everything you believe in? Or is it limiting the variety of experience that can be brought there.
If the purpose of leadership is to create more leaders, and not more followers, than the Congressperson should lead by an example that can be followed by their successor. This also includes mistakes to NOT make.
Too confusing. And I don't mind someone being a lobbyist after their term(s) is/are up/
If all we have to do to get rid of Lobbyists is repeal the 17th amendment, then how come peeka chaka no wookiee boonowa tweepie Solo? Ho ho hoooo.
Ernst barkmann: 0
D.C. lobbyists: 0
Jabba: 1