Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yaxomoxay, Nov 18, 2016.
What's your view?
I am still debating whether I am in favor or not.
Institutional memory stays with the staffers. You want term limits, it has to be applied to the support that sticks around as well, otherwise you end up with new members being led by the nose by those who "know how it's done".
Are you in favor of the built in morgue in the basement of the capital for when a congressman dies while in office.
No on term limits. Yes on independent commissions drawing voting districts. Gerrymandering is as undemocratic as you can get.
Regardless of the party doing it. <-Before the trolls come out of the woodwork.
I agree entirely. If we can remove big money from elected office races, then I have no problem with a population voting for a representative as long as they want to.
I definitely support term limits. Most all other government positions have them. Why doesn't congress?
Besides, do we really want some of the same people in office for 10, 20, 30 years? I feel like when you're in office that long, you begin to get disillusioned. You think you know best but you don't. Know what I mean?
I also think that staying in congress too long leaves the door wide open for corruption. If someone is corrupt but they can stay in office forever, that's very dangerous.
The problem is also in the opposite. Elected for the last time, will try to cash in as much as possible.
Percentage-dependent. Barely won second run-> limit applies, and increases with each new term.
Against term limits.
The people should be capable enough to make those choices for themselves.
I'm definitely against term limits for congress. If we go with term limits then one we will lose the experience that lets people know how to get things done and two congress people will be looking to give out favors more than they already are so they can have something to do after their terms are up.
Instead we should just write a computer program that only takes into account where people live in a state and divides it into as close to square districts as possible while keeping the same population in each. If we do that we take people out of the equation and eliminate the possibility of gerrymandering so the voters can actually decide if they want to keep their representatives instead of only having 30 or so competitive districts.
2 terms for senate. 4 max for reps.
So the lefties are against term limits. No wonder they voted for Hillary in the primaries instead of Bernie.
Unless you address Congressional staffers, term limits will give them all the power.
Should be but I think we know the answer to that.
Dang. Any way we turn, we can't win.
I vote no government at all. Total anarchy. Mad Max style.
I am for it. I keep the girls that were in the newest Mad Max.
Congress already has term limits: They are called elections, and they are held every two years for House Members.
The unique role of the Presidency, the awesome responsibility it places on the incumbent, to say nothing of the immense personal toll it takes on the officeholder, means I am fully supportive of the Constitutional limits of Presidential terms. Much as I love and respect Barack Obama, I think he and his family are looking forward to an honorable and productive retirement. I'll confess twinges of wistfulness in wishing for a third Obama term. But then I remember that in the big scheme of things, its better that can't happen.
Will there sometimes be instances where the lack of term limits in the House and Senate causes problems? Absolutely. We don't need nonagenarians passing legislation. But such instances are thankfully few and far between, enough so that from a national perspective, its really a non-issue.
Redo the districts. Make it simpler. 1 Congressman per x people. Use county lines as boundaries. Multiple counties districts must be contigous. In very large counties, it could be possible to have more than one Congress critter.
unfortunately term limits only produce a new crop of the same quality of politicians being replaced.....the results are definitely a mixed bag
I have an idea that many will find crazy but hear me out: Make serving in congress similar to jury duty in that almost every citizen must do it at some point. Talk about diverse ideas, backgrounds, demographics, etc, etc. that's the way to go. Everyone that's able bodied, no criminal record and basically the same criteria as jurors have to serve. This way those that pass laws have to actually live with the consequences. Too often, govt folks are hardly if ever affected by their own laws. They're rich. They have great health care. They have every need taken care of and just don't get it. And don't say too many people aren't qualified either. What makes some spoiled jackwad lawyer any more qualified than you or I? Nothing.
Takes the money OUT of it completely. Takes the same old rich scumbags winning every election OUT. Seriously....congressional approval is at like ten percent. Ten. effing. Percent. Time to scrap the entire thing.
The problem is that doesn't take the money out of it. It just moves the money from paying for election campaigns to job offers in exchange for votes.
The people have the power to drain the swamp.
But they need daddy to do it for them.
And how is he going to drain the majority party in congress. Seems counterproductive to his goals.
That's what I'm curious to see as well.
I'm sure they can find a Democrat of two to sacrifice on the altar.
After six terms, their life-clock starts blinking and they must enter The Carrousel, just like Logan's Run.