The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: CG6468 on June 24, 2013, 03:30:46 PM
-
Can the citizens of this nation make and enforce a provision to make term limits mandatory for all politicians, and do it without congress critters passing anything? The pols won't do it because it would destroy their "careers." But being a rep or senator was NEVER meant to be a career.
-
Maybe it could be done at the state level?
-
I think it would be possible to force them to pass something like that but it would take massive support from both sides. Think we could get Dems and Republicans to work together long enough to get it done?
-
Can the citizens of this nation make and enforce a provision to make term limits mandatory for all politicians, and do it without congress critters passing anything? The pols won't do it because it would destroy their "careers." But being a rep or senator was NEVER meant to be a career.
We already do.
They are called elections.
-
Problem is getting voters united not to vote for an incumbent. It would be interesting to start a mass campaign to do something like this.
-
We already do.
They are called elections.
No, we don't. Elections are bought and paid for by the pols.
-
No, we don't. Elections are bought and paid for by the pols.
Yet each election is an exercise in term limits.
Sometimes the incumbent wins, and sometimes the challenger wins.
-
Yet each election is an exercise in term limits.
Sometimes the incumbent wins, and sometimes the challenger wins.
Term limits would ensure that a new group of people would represent the people of this country. That's what's needed to change how things operate, good or bad. One 5-year term for everyone but the president's 2-4 year terms.
Simply relying on elections has never worked, and it's much worse now. Take Chuckyouschumer, Peloshit, Dunnieharry, worthless boner, etc. as examples of how bad things are. Please take them....
-
Yet each election is an exercise in term limits.
Sometimes the incumbent wins, and sometimes the challenger wins.
I think the point that CG is making is that MONEY is a much more powerful voice than the ballot.
-
I think the point that CG is making is that MONEY is a much more powerful voice than the ballot.
Either that, or the fact that the current voting population is so woefully uninformed that they reelect the incumbent at a rate of 97%.
I'm for term limits. I think it should be a total lifetime limit of 20 years of federal elected office.
-
Thanks, doc.
20 years of government service is way too much.
-
Can the citizens of this nation make and enforce a provision to make term limits mandatory for all politicians, and do it without congress critters passing anything? The pols won't do it because it would destroy their "careers." But being a rep or senator was NEVER meant to be a career.
Can't be done without amending the COTUS.
-
Either that, or the fact that the current voting population is so woefully uninformed that they reelect the incumbent at a rate of 97%.
I'm for term limits. I think it should be a total lifetime limit of 20 years of federal elected office.
I'd opt for no more than 12 years as an elected official.
-
I'd opt for no more than 12 years as an elected official.
The limit has to be tied to the end of the term of service, whatever that would be.
-
The limit has to be tied to the end of the term of service, whatever that would be.
I'm not following you on that. Please expand on what you mean.
-
I'm not following you on that. Please expand on what you mean.
I favor one term of 5 years.
But depending on how the terms of service would be set up:
For 5-year maximum: OUT after that 5-year term.
For 10 year maximum (2 terms) - OUT after 10 years (MAX).
Etc.
No exceptions, no further government service or government job.
-
I favor one term of 5 years.
But depending on how the terms of service would be set up:
For 5-year maximum: OUT after that 5-year term.
For 10 year maximum (2 terms) - OUT after 10 years (MAX).
Etc.
No exceptions, no further government service or government job.
Senators serve for a minimum of 6 years. That is where I got my 12 year max. Two terms.
-
Senators serve for a minimum of 6 years. That is where I got my 12 year max. Two terms.
But that's no reason the people can't change that, at least in my scenario. There'd be no minimum, only a maximum.
Tying it in with the end of the maximum term(s) would eliminate the off-year elections (except for a death of a rep or sen.)
-
Yep i agree 12 years total don't pass go afterwards don't collect anything.......go back to civilian life, and that is if you were in the senate. In my opinion if you your term would go over the 12 year mark for the office you are going for they you are not eligible to run....period. We have a problem with the twits in orifice especially the socialists.
-
Yep i agree 12 years total don't pass go afterwards don't collect anything.......go back to civilian life, and that is if you were in the senate. In my opinion if you your term would go over the 12 year mark for the office you are going for they you are not eligible to run....period. We have a problem with the twits in orifice especially the socialists.
Twelve years is fine by me. Two terms in the Senate, six in the House. No more of this lifetime gravy train where you have drooling geriatrics on the federal payroll.
-
Many conservatives don't understand the scope and strength of vote buying schemes libs have perpetrated on hard working real Americans. It is this institutionalized vote buying that gives lib office holders unlimited terms.
-
Yes you are right...that is why I would have provisions to execute anyone taking bribes and/or kick backs...might thin out pretty quick...but I say that's ok. I my self am sick of this holy-er than thou mentality in our slaves in office...they work for us.
-
Term limits would ensure that a new group of people would represent the people of this country. That's what's needed to change how things operate, good or bad. One 5-year term for everyone but the president's 2-4 year terms.
You would simply exchange long-term incumbents with machine politics and party dynasties, with a new face every 5 years.
Is that an improvement?
Simply relying on elections has never worked, and it's much worse now. Take Chuckyouschumer, Peloshit, Dunnieharry, worthless boner, etc. as examples of how bad things are. Please take them....
How would their replacements be better? Is there something about a term limit that increases the quality of candidates?
-
Well term limits wont increase the quality of the candidate...just limit the damage done by one bozo. I don't know if we can increase the quality because people that would make a difference wont run...only the idiots it seems. But then again the idiots seem to be reproducing at a gawd awful rate as well...but that a different discussion altogether.
-
Maybe it could be done at the state level?
But it wouldn't carry any weight in regards to those who hold elected federal office; i.e., Senators and Representatives. To limit them would take a Constitutional amendment.
Several states do in fact have term limits for their elected officials. And for the most part, they're a joke, as the same group of politicians simply play musical chairs/positions in state governments. Look at California as a prime example of that.
Problem is not so much the term limits as it is the fact that Congressmen/Senators are constantly fundraising. And to do so, they'll listen to the PACs that donate hundreds of thousands or millions to their campaign coffers before the schlubs like you and me who give them a couple hundred at most.
How to resolve this? Giving away "free" airtime, while it sounds nice, ain't the answer either. Candidate, particularly in close districts, will blow through their allotment and pour millions more into TV/news spots.
-
You would simply exchange long-term incumbents with machine politics and party dynasties, with a new face every 5 years.
Is that an improvement?
How would their replacements be better? Is there something about a term limit that increases the quality of candidates?
That would depend on the voters. If there's no benefits to electing an individual, maybe we'd see higher quality people running for off.
Nonetheless, I simply cannot fathom why someone would open up his or her entire life to scrutiny about what he or she did or opined in the past. The further back in the past the less sense it makes.
-
One great thing about term limits is that because they won't be spending their life in Washington and they won't get a lifetime gravy train they have to return to their home states and deal with the consequences of their actions.
-
One great thing about term limits is that because they won't be spending their life in Washington and they won't get a lifetime gravy train they have to return to their home states and deal with the consequences of their actions.
EXACTLY!!!!
-
I would set both house and senate to four year terms on the off years from the presidential term. Give each two terms, but with a provision that if someone wants to serve both house and senate then it's four years of each. The absolute max someone could serve would be 24 years and that would be a very rare occurrence. that would be two terms in either the house or senate (8 years) two terms as vice president (8 years) and two terms as president. There would be no pension plan, there would be a 401k plan set up like any other employer offered plan. They would have the same health care plan the rest of us do.
-
I would set both house and senate to four year terms on the off years from the presidential term. Give each two terms, but with a provision that if someone wants to serve both house and senate then it's four years of each. The absolute max someone could serve would be 24 years and that would be a very rare occurrence. that would be two terms in either the house or senate (8 years) two terms as vice president (8 years) and two terms as president. There would be no pension plan, there would be a 401k plan set up like any other employer offered plan. They would have the same health care plan the rest of us do.
I don't think anyone should be able to jump from House to Senate, nor from either of those to VP or Pres. New blood is the phrase we must never forget.
-
Occasionally we do get very strong leaders, Reagan, Rand Paul, etc I would allow for that to develop some... but like I said that would be rare
-
I don't think anyone should be able to jump from House to Senate, nor from either of those to VP or Pres. New blood is the phrase we must never forget.
James Madison served 16 years as President, 8 years as US Representative, and 8 years as Secretary of State.
Thomas Jefferson served as President for 8 years, Vice President for 4 years, Secretary of State for 3 years, and Ambassador to France for 4 years.
John Adams was President for 4 years, VP for 8 years, and an ambassador for 6 years.
John Quincy Adams served 4 years as President, 5 years as US Senator, 17 years as US Representative, 8 years as Secretary of State, and 17 years as an ambassador.
Was the United States better, or worse, for their service?
-
Well term limits wont increase the quality of the candidate...just limit the damage done by one bozo. I don't know if we can increase the quality because people that would make a difference wont run...only the idiots it seems. But then again the idiots seem to be reproducing at a gawd awful rate as well...but that a different discussion altogether.
Meet the new bozo, same as the old bozo.... with one difference.
The bozos will have their hands out from the moment they are elected, to maximize the amount of gravy they can suck from the train.
-
difference is it will be very visible and they will only last one term.
-
difference is it will be very visible and they will only last one term.
Which only limits the amount of time an individual can benefit from the graft. The other side of the coin is that the bribers would probably bribe more people with more money to gain the blocs of votes for their interests.
-
I think the one really great thing about term limits is that both sides could unite behind it. Lifetime politicians no matter what flavor sway like grasses in the wind, their only concern is for re-election. I think one of the moles should throw the idea out at the DU see what the response is. That may be one of the few things we could agree on.
-
Which only limits the amount of time an individual can benefit from the graft. The other side of the coin is that the bribers would probably bribe more people with more money to gain the blocs of votes for their interests.
But with fresh blood we'd stand a better chance of having special interests legislated out of Washington. As it stands there isn't a hope in hell of limiting special interests.
-
But with fresh blood we'd stand a better chance of having special interests legislated out of Washington. As it stands there isn't a hope in hell of limiting special interests.
More legislation? Is that the solution?
What about the First Amendment rights of the people who make up the "special interests"? As an NRA and GOA member, I am a special interest. I am opposed to anything that outlaws my exercise of free speech, free association, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances on matters related to the Second Amendment.
There is nothing in the idea of term limits which would reduce the influence of special interests. Given human nature, it is more likely that craven, venal men would choose the 5 year gravy train than stout, upright men. As it stands today, the people best equipped to govern have no desire to do so.
-
More legislation? Is that the solution?
What about the First Amendment rights of the people who make up the "special interests"? As an NRA and GOA member, I am a special interest. I am opposed to anything that outlaws my exercise of free speech, free association, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances on matters related to the Second Amendment.
There is nothing in the idea of term limits which would reduce the influence of special interests. Given human nature, it is more likely that craven, venal men would choose the 5 year gravy train than stout, upright men. As it stands today, the people best equipped to govern have no desire to do so.
But there may be a chance to limit the amount of money special interests can spend or the attention they receive. A representative's ultimate responsibility should be to his/her constituents. They are there to be a voice for them.
-
Besides if there is going to be more legislation I'd rather it limit what politicians can do than what I can do.
-
The answer to the OP is a pretty unequivocal "No," for reasons that anyone who was alive and paying attention to politics in the 90s would already know. Any Amendment or even just law implementing this would have to start in Congress and pass both houses, so no on that approach; any State that does it, without 49 other States following suit (any of the 50 State laws still being subject to repeal at any time...) is just cutting its own throat on seniority and committee appointments in Congress, because they will all end up in the hands of the States that don't do it.
-
I think, more than anything, that the dissatisfaction with Congress and with politicians in general is exacerbated by the:
- conversion of "citizen/politicians" into professional politicians
- focus on becoming reelected at the exclusion of all other issues
- focus on the political party at the exclusion of all else, save getting reelected
- practice of creating, maintaining, and defending individual fiefdoms
If the idea of term limits was so off-putting (clearly evidenced by Big Dog's and Sparky's arguments against the practice), then why and how did we **** up by adopting the 22nd Amendment?
What is fundamentally different about the office of the President versus the Robert Byrds, Strom Thurmonds, Henry Waxmans, and Charlie Rangels? (Besides the vast difference in power - though even that is relative).
The overall idea, I think, is to once again return to the idea that it's one's civic duty to serve the nation as a representative, senator, or president. Attaining these offices should not be a goal to be attained for the ultimate perversion of power.
But it's become that way.
Perhaps it's just romanticized bullshit when I remember learning that Washington declined serving a third term as president, thereby setting a precedent and a long-standing one until the Ultimate Socialist - FDR - rolled around. FDR did exactly what I talked about - he established the strongest of power bases until his stroke finally ended all that after some 13 years in power.
-
Besides if there is going to be more legislation I'd rather it limit what politicians can do than what I can do.
Think about this.
Do you really think the Senate would pass a Constitutional amendment limiting its own power, and 2/3 of all the state legislatures would pass an amendment destroying their own influence in the Federal government?
-
James Madison served 16 years as President, 8 years as US Representative, and 8 years as Secretary of State.
Huh?
May want to check that statistic. whitehouse.gov says Madison was prez from 1809 to 1817.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jamesmadison
-
Think about this.
Do you really think the Senate would pass a Constitutional amendment limiting its own power, and 2/3 of all the state legislatures would pass an amendment destroying their own influence in the Federal government?
If there was enough public outcry for it they would have to, but we're talking about a massive public campaign and total public support.
-
I think we're coming to the point where this could be possible, no one trusts the federal government anymore. it's become so corrupt wasteful and full of scandals that I think the majority of citizens would back something like this. Key would be getting the financial backing to push a campaign like this nationally.
-
Huh?
May want to check that statistic. whitehouse.gov says Madison was prez from 1809 to 1817.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jamesmadison
Oops. Brain fart.
Thanks for pointing that out.
-
If there was enough public outcry for it they would have to, but we're talking about a massive public campaign and total public support.
None of which exist in the real world.
-
None of which exist in the real world.
Agreed. There just isn't the public outrage sufficient to roust Bobby and Megan from their American Idol, iPhone, and Facebook drug fixes.
-
I think we're coming to the point where this could be possible, no one trusts the federal government anymore. it's become so corrupt wasteful and full of scandals that I think the majority of citizens would back something like this. Key would be getting the financial backing to push a campaign like this nationally.
So, a well-funded special interest with the goal of eliminating well-funded special interests.
Right?
-
Think about this.
Do you really think the Senate would pass a Constitutional amendment limiting its own power, and 2/3 of all the state legislatures would pass an amendment destroying their own influence in the Federal government?
That's why I asked the beginning question, about enacting the term limits law without Congress.
-
So, a well-funded special interest with the goal of eliminating well-funded special interests.
Right?
No a large public ad campaign, something in main street America not Washington. gain so much public support that everyone is screaming at their reps for this to pass. with the 2014 elections coming up have the public demanding it or no incumbents will be re-elected.
-
I'm not saying this would be easy but It's possible.
-
That's why I asked the beginning question, about enacting the term limits law without Congress.
There are two processes to amend the Constitution:
a) Introducing an amendment in both houses of Congress as a Joint Resolution, which must pass both houses by 2/3; then passed by 3/4 of all State legislatures.
b) Constitutional Convention, called by 2/3 of all the State Legislature. This has not been done since the original convention of 1787.
Following "a", you would need the buy-in of both political parties in both houses and 3/4 of all State legislatures to remove power from their own hands.
Following "b", a Constitutional Convention would put everything on the table. Which of your natural rights are you prepared to have infringed upon by our "enlightened" politicians, in the name of "good government"?
-
No a large public ad campaign, something in main street America not Washington. gain so much public support that everyone is screaming at their reps for this to pass. with the 2014 elections coming up have the public demanding it or no incumbents will be re-elected.
Who will lead this effort? Where will the money come from?
-
I'm not saying this would be easy but It's possible.
Is it possible? Realistically?
-
I can remember what was called a "Con-Con," or a Constitutional Convention, years ago. But that was way before I was old enough to care about politics.
It was certainly after 1787 (I'm old, but not THAT old! :lmao: ); it was in the 1950s.
-
We'd have to find a very outspoken billionaire that isn't afraid to throw his/her name out there. a Trump or Buffet.
-
The 26th amendment was passed in 18 months in the 70's giving 18 year olds the right to vote. It was based off of a public support campaign and spread through word of mouth. It's possible.
-
The 26th amendment was passed in 18 months in the 70's giving 18 year olds the right to vote. It was based off of a public support campaign and spread through word of mouth. It's possible.
The 26th Amendment granted additional legal rights to citizens.
Your idea reduces the ability of citizens to serve in elected office, which limits a legal right (the right of Citizens to participate in self-government)
The argument against it is very easy to make.
-
We'd have to find a very outspoken billionaire that isn't afraid to throw his/her name out there. a Trump or Buffet.
So, you want a rich man to use his money and influence to change our government.
Isn't that the very thing you oppose?
-
I can remember what was called a "Con-Con," or a Constitutional Convention, years ago. But that was way before I was old enough to care about politics.
It was certainly after 1787 (I'm old, but not THAT old! :lmao: ); it was in the 1950s.
1933.
The 21st Amendment,repealing Prohibition, was passed in state conventions, but it originated in Congress.
There has not been a national Constitutional Convention since the first one.
-
1933.
The 21st Amendment,repealing Prohibition, was passed in state conventions, but it originated in Congress.
There has not been a national Constitutional Convention since the first one.
It might have been for the Illinois Constitution. But there was one in the 1950s.
-
Your idea reduces the ability of citizens to serve in elected office, which limits a legal right (the right of Citizens to participate in self-government)
The argument against it is very easy to make.
Actually it increases the ability of citizens to serve in office. Instead of one guy becoming a lifetime politician you have multiple members of a district serving.
-
So, you want a rich man to use his money and influence to change our government.
Isn't that the very thing you oppose?
If it supports the idea proposed it's a means to an end. There could also be a drive for public donations but I know the fastest way to kick start an idea would be large amounts of cash.
-
Actually it increases the ability of citizens to serve in office. Instead of one guy becoming a lifetime politician you have multiple members of a district serving.
Yet it restricts the right of an individual Citizen to participate in self-governance.
Are you advocating restricting the rights of a Citizen for a nebulous "greater good"?
-
Yet it restricts the right of an individual Citizen to participate in self-governance.
Are you advocating restricting the rights of a Citizen for a nebulous "greater good"?
It doesn't restrict a citizen from being able to serve, it allows more opportunities to serve. It may help weed out the corruption of professional politicians and return the concept of a government of the people by the people.
-
If it supports the idea proposed it's a means to an end. There could also be a drive for public donations but I know the fastest way to kick start an idea would be large amounts of cash.
So now, the end justifies the means, and the exercise of power and influence is OK, as long as it results in an outcome you desire.
Think about that for a minute. Does that sound right to you? Ethical? Representative of the America you want to live in?
OK, back to our discussion.
Make the pitch to me, the billionaire. Tell me why I should exert my influence and spend my money, in a scheme to eliminate my own influence. What's in it for me?
-
It doesn't restrict a citizen from being able to serve,
False statement, It absolutely does.
Let me spell it out for you.
Citizen X served as a US Senator for the prescribed term, then returned to private life. Ten years later, Citizen X wants to run for President. He is prohibited from doing that by your amendment.
Citizen X's right to participate in self-government has been infringed.
-
So now, the end justifies the means, and the exercise of power and influence is OK, as long as it results in an outcome you desire.
Think about that for a minute. Does that sound right to you? Ethical? Representative of the America you want to live in?
As opposed to how things are now? our government is spying on us our POTUS is wiping his ass with the constitution od our elected "representatives" are doing nothing about it for fear they might not be re-elected. Our politicians sway with the wind changing opinions and direction based off what is likely to get them elected. and problems are kicked down the road because they don't want to deal with them.
-
False statement, It absolutely does.
Let me spell it out for you.
Citizen X served as a US Senator for the prescribed term, then returned to private life. Ten years later, Citizen X wants to run for President. He is prohibited from doing that by your amendment.
Citizen X's right to participate in self-government has been infringed.
No he's not look at what I suggested two terms for both house and senate and possible two terms for VP and PRES. they would have to be one hell of a leader to get the max of 24 years.
-
As opposed to how things are now? our government is spying on us our POTUS is wiping his ass with the constitution od our elected "representatives" are doing nothing about it for fear they might not be re-elected. Our politicians sway with the wind changing opinions and direction based off what is likely to get them elected. and problems are kicked down the road because they don't want to deal with them.
There's right, and there's wrong.
Doing the wrong thing for the right reason doesn't make it right.
-
No he's not look at what I suggested two terms for both house and senate and possible two terms for VP and PRES. they would have to be one hell of a leader to get the max of 24 years.
You are correct. I confused your idea with 24 years, with the other, more restrictive idea.
But the principle stands- 4 years, 10 years, or 20 years. Putting a time limit on serving in elected office infringes on the right of a Citizen to participate in his self-governance, and on the rights of voters to select the candidates of our choice.
-
OK, back to our discussion.
Make the pitch to me, the billionaire. Tell me why I should exert my influence and spend my money, in a scheme to eliminate my own influence. What's in it for me?
Our system is broken, politicians and big government are spending us into oblivion. The Washington establishment is so out of touch with the rest of the US the power structure has to be changed. Politicians serve us, We don't serve them. If left alone they will continue to crush the value of the dollar and reduce our political influence in the rest of the world. As a billionaire you struggle with a government that can't maintain a constant course and if the economy does crash what will that do to your business and investments? The only way to change Washington is to take power away. We need strong capital to drive a public awareness campaign to institute term limits for all branches of Government. Once term limits are in place the government will become effective again problems can be addressed without the fear of not being re-elected.
-
The 26th amendment was passed in 18 months in the 70's giving 18 year olds the right to vote. It was based off of a public support campaign and spread through word of mouth. It's possible.
That 'Word of mouth' campaign also involved overwhelming support and promotion in the press, which was as opportunistic as ever and saw it all as part of the antiwar movement they had fallen in love with by then, so it wasn't maybe as grass-roots as you think. You might try looking at this sort of thing rationally instead of emotionally, using something called "Interest analysis," which is a way of figuring out who wants what, who gains, and who loses in any outcome. Prior to the recent departure of Seniletor Byrd to the Great Klan Rally in the Sky, do you seriously think the residents of West Virginia would have been inclined to give up their exceptional and disproportionate pipeline to the Federal treasury by kicking out the guy who kept the valve open? Do you think the Washington press corps (And by extension the MSM for which they work) are going to be favorably disposed to having to constantly deal with a changing set of key players and relentlessly rebuilding relationships with them? Incumbents from both sides are also going to be generally hostile, since it's not the game they bargained to play.
I like the idea myself, say something like a 24-year limit for each House, but its real appeal is to the populist faction of whichever Party is out of power at the moment, which is never going to get it off the dime.
-
You are correct. I confused your idea with 24 years, with the other, more restrictive idea.
But the principle stands- 4 years, 10 years, or 20 years. Putting a time limit on serving in elected office infringes on the right of a Citizen to participate in his self-governance, and on the rights of voters to select the candidates of our choice.
Then what would you suggest to limit corruption and the effect of the Washington bubble (politicians only aware of what is going on in Washington and not their districts)
-
Our system is broken, politicians and big government are spending us into oblivion. The Washington establishment is so out of touch with the rest of the US the power structure has to be changed. Politicians serve us, We don't serve them. If left alone they will continue to crush the value of the dollar and reduce our political influence in the rest of the world. As a billionaire you struggle with a government that can't maintain a constant course and if the economy does crash what will that do to your business and investments? The only way to change Washington is to take power away. We need strong capital to drive a public awareness campaign to institute term limits for all branches of Government. Once term limits are in place the government will become effective again problems can be addressed without the fear of not being re-elected.
I can (and probably already do) spend my money and influence now to get what I want.
You want to use my money and my influence, to reduce the power of my money and my influence.
What's in it for me?
-
I can (and probably already do) spend my money and influence now to get what I want.
You want to use my money and my influence, to reduce the power of my money and my influence.
What's in it for me?
Honestly Big Dog I don't know the answer to that. I'm simply tired of the status quo in our government. Something has to give. In my mind Term limits would go a long way to fixing the power structure of the country. Sure there may be a better answer. All I know is that it wasn't the intentions of the founding fathers to have professional politicians. Representatives were supposed to come from districts to represent those districts and that isn't happening anymore.
-
Then what would you suggest to limit corruption and the effect of the Washington bubble (politicians only aware of what is going on in Washington and not their districts)
I suggest nothing.
I mistrust government, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. If the term limit is five years, the same sick, venal narcissists will serve (themselves) for 5 years, and will take their suitcase full of cash with them when they leave. The next generation of officials will be equally sick, venal, and narcissicistic.
It is the responsibility of each Citizen to inform himself and to participate in the process. We get the government we make. Couple an electorate where 50% +1 vote to plunder from their fellow Citizens (makers v. takers), and majority of citizens who vote for American Idol instead of voting for their elected officials. We will continue to make a sick, venal government populated by narcissists.
-
Honestly Big Dog I don't know the answer to that. I'm simply tired of the status quo in our government. Something has to give. In my mind Term limits would go a long way to fixing the power structure of the country. Sure there may be a better answer. All I know is that it wasn't the intentions of the founding fathers to have professional politicians. Representatives were supposed to come from districts to represent those districts and that isn't happening anymore.
I understand that, my friend.
This Socratic exercise was intended to point you to understanding that the solution may be worse than the problem.
In my opinion, the answer is found within each of us, the sovereign Citizen, and not in anything Washington shoves down our throat.
1. Stand on your principles. Do the right thing, the right way, for the right reason.
2. Don't give the bastards an inch.
3. Starve the pig.
-
I understand that, my friend.
This Socratic exercise was intended to point you to understanding that the solution may be worse than the problem.
In my opinion, the answer is found within each of us, the sovereign Citizen, and not in anything Washington shoves down our throat.
1. Stand on your principles. Do the right thing, the right way, for the right reason.
2. Don't give the bastards an inch.
3. Starve the pig.
I admit Part of the benefit as I see it is that it will reduce the impact of the low information voter. Too many people vote idiots back into office merely because it's a name they recognize not based off of anything else. Maxine Waters comes to mind.
-
I admit Part of the benefit as I see it is that it will reduce the impact of the low information voter. Too many people vote idiots back into office merely because it's a name they recognize not based off of anything else. Maxine Waters comes to mind.
Congresscritters bring "free stuff from Washington" back to their home districts, and the LIVs vote for them to get more "free stuff".
LIVs are not familiar with the principle of TANSTAAFL.
-
Congresscritters bring "free stuff from Washington" back to their home districts, and the LIVs vote for them to get more "free stuff".
LIVs are not familiar with the principle of TANSTAAFL.
http://youtu.be/YmqoCHR14n8
-
I suggest nothing.
I mistrust government, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. If the term limit is five years, the same sick, venal narcissists will serve (themselves) for 5 years, and will take their suitcase full of cash with them when they leave. The next generation of officials will be equally sick, venal, and narcissicistic.
It is the responsibility of each Citizen to inform himself and to participate in the process. We get the government we make. Couple an electorate where 50% +1 vote to plunder from their fellow Citizens (makers v. takers), and majority of citizens who vote for American Idol instead of voting for their elected officials. We will continue to make a sick, venal government populated by narcissists.
There has to be a way to hold them in check, I agree I do not trust them but I refuse to allow that they are my master. I will fight that till I die or move away from this country. Doing nothing is not an option. It's time to look at any and all options to change our current direction.
-
But the principle stands- 4 years, 10 years, or 20 years. Putting a time limit on serving in elected office infringes on the right of a Citizen to participate in his self-governance, and on the rights of voters to select the candidates of our choice.
We've already lost those "rights". We have no self-governance, nor do we have the option of selecting candidates of our choice, which is done by political parties.
-
There has to be a way to hold them in check, I agree I do not trust them but I refuse to allow that they are my master. I will fight that till I die or move away from this country. Doing nothing is not an option. It's time to look at any and all options to change our current direction.
You are correct- they are not your master.
They will only be your master if you let them. That ultimately falls to you, the Citizen.
I will never move from my Country. I will never submit. I will never surrender.
-
I will never move from my Country.
But if something doesn't happen to change the course we're on then this will no longer be our country, it barely resembles the country I grew up in as it is.
-
Term limits, if ever enacted will more adversely affect conservatives than it will libs. Libs have a machine in place to put manchurian candidates like owebuma into office. Inept, incompetent, inexperienced.
Conservative candidates must be impeccable and squeaky clean with several terms in place to bolster their incumbency.
-
Term limits, if ever enacted will more adversely affect conservatives than it will libs. Libs have a machine in place to put manchurian candidates like owebuma into office. Inept, incompetent, inexperienced.
Conservative candidates must be impeccable and squeaky clean with several terms in place to bolster their incumbency.
You mean like McCain? :whistling:
-
You mean like McCain? :whistling:
I wouldn't call McCain conservative. He's very easily distracted from conservative principles.
-
I think after this president you're going to see more vetting of presidential candidates. no more sealed records
-
You mean like McCain? :whistling:
McCain is exactly what I'm trying to prevent with term limits. his smile makes my skin crawl, Harry Reed has the same effect.
-
I think after this president you're going to see more vetting of presidential candidates. no more sealed records
Vetting of libs ? Haah.
-
I don't think the libs are gonna be talking highly of Obama after his presidency is done. I think they're going to hope he fades into obscurity. he's hurt the dem party as well.
-
1. Stand on your principles. Do the right thing, the right way, for the right reason.
2. Don't give the bastards an inch.
3. Starve the pig.
And end up in jail. That is where we are heading. IMO.
-
1. Stand on your principles. Do the right thing, the right way, for the right reason.
2. Don't give the bastards an inch.
3. Starve the pig.
And end up in jail. That is where we are heading. IMO.
I am an American Citizen. I will never submit. I will never surrender.
-
I am an American Citizen. I will never submit. I will never surrender.
I'll be there with you. :usflag:
-
Term limits, if ever enacted will more adversely affect conservatives than it will libs. Libs have a machine in place to put manchurian candidates like owebuma into office. Inept, incompetent, inexperienced.
Conservative candidates must be impeccable and squeaky clean with several terms in place to bolster their incumbency.
Libs wouldn't exist if I had a say...we may be headed that direction when push comes to shove soon anywho.
-
That would depend on the voters. If there's no benefits to electing an individual, maybe we'd see higher quality people running for off.
Nonetheless, I simply cannot fathom why someone would open up his or her entire life to scrutiny about what he or she did or opined in the past. The further back in the past the less sense it makes.
I would disagree with that. Here in NH, the Reps get $100/year plus mileage to/from Concord. Not a whole lot.
What that does is creates two types who run for office--seniors and those who don't need the money, either independently wealthy or kiddies still living with mommy and daddy.
None of whom really represent basic middle class interests.
-
That's why I asked the beginning question, about enacting the term limits law without Congress.
Again, term limits on elected officials at the federal level ain't ever gonna happen because it would quite literally take a Constitutional amendment to do that.
-
I think after this president you're going to see more vetting of presidential candidates. no more sealed records
I also have a bridge you might like to buy....
-
I also have a bridge you might like to buy....
Yeah. Obama is the Dem's dream candidate... no background check, no history, no witnesses.
-
hehe yea well not being documented must be a dream!!!!