Term Limits- vote anti-incumbent every election.

[Gdjjr]

Everyone wants change, yet everyone keeps voting for the same people/policy/thing every election and, for some reason seem to believe (though I think it's more emotional than rational) that will change - something, though I'm not sure about what they believe/feel is, or has changed, for decades.

Some espouse Term Limits as the answer. "We the people" have the power to invoke Term Limits, every election. They are staggered, so that helps. Trying to get an amendment for a servants job to be limited by time ain't gonna happen since it first has to be approved and agreed on by the servants we'd like to fire.

It's simple, really. Just think about it. Vote anti-incumbent every time.

 

[Votto]

Everyone wants change, yet everyone keeps voting for the same people/policy/thing every election and, for some reason seem to believe (though I think it's more emotional than rational) that will change - something, though I'm not sure about what they believe/feel is, or has changed, for decades.

Some espouse Term Limits as the answer. "We the people" have the power to invoke Term Limits, every election. They are staggered, so that helps. Trying to get an amendment for a servants job to be limited by time ain't gonna happen since it first has to be approved and agreed on by the servants we'd like to fire.

It's simple, really. Just think about it. Vote anti-incumbent every time.

Well Congress voted for term limits for the President, citing the need because of corruption after the never ending FDR terms, but they will never concede to have it done to themselves. Apparently corruption only extends into the Executive Branch and not Legislative

After all, who would undermine their own power and imposing term limits is a power of Congress.

The Article V movement is a movement to have states amend the Constitution for the first time in US history. This is the only way to legally impose term limits on Congress, a body of legislators who consistently have an approval rating of well under 20%, yet they keep getting elected anyway

And why do they keep getting elected? Corruption. It is far easier to get re-elected than elected the first time.

 

[whitehall]

Deny people the option to vote for a congressperson or senator who has been shown to serve their needs? How is that going to accomplish anything? Why not term limit teachers and medical personnel?

 

[Votto]

Deny people the option to vote for a congressperson or senator who has been shown to serve their needs? How is that going to accomplish anything? Why not term limit teachers and medical personnel?

Politicians are elected, that's why. And once they get into office, there is a myriad of ways to fix it so you won't lose the next election, hence the corruption.

We now have career politicians in Congress who opt out of Obamacare, even though they force it on all of us, and have much better health care policies, as well as lavish retirement packages, while only maintaining approval ratings along the way that is under 20%.

As a result, we have an elitist body of legislators that live in their Ivory Towers and are not concerned with entering back into society that they are actively destroying. Congressmen are more like cartoon characters than real people, like Maxine Waters getting up their rubbing elbows with an avowed racist and Jew hater like Louis Farrakhan and then shouting racist at all her political opponents.

If she were at least half way intelligent people like her might be half way tolerable.

 

[Gdjjr]

Deny people the option to vote for a congressperson or senator who has been shown to serve their needs?

Congress isn't there to serve needs- BTW, needs are: air, water, food, clothing and shelter- the last two optional depending on environment. EVERYTHING else is a want and/or desire.

Congress, originally, was supposed to ensure one locale didn't hold legal advantage over another- congress critters, the re present a tives in the District of Criminals, the Empty Suits, masquerading as humans, inside the belt way "serve" their wants, desires and wishes by *restricting* the pursuit of Happiness except to the well funded- the preamble is pretty clear about why the fed gov't was established- part of it is: secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves - restricting is the polar opposite of securing- laws, by definition (today) restrict. Period. Never mind that, originally, laws were meant to produce punishment for criminal activity-

 

[Votto]

Congress isn't there to serve needs- BTW, needs are: air, water, food, clothing and shelter- the last two optional depending on environment. EVERYTHING else is a want and/or desire.

Congress, originally, was supposed to ensure one locale didn't hold legal advantage over another- congress critters, the re present a tives in the District of Criminals, the Empty Suits, masquerading as humans, inside the belt way "serve" their wants, desires and wishes by *restricting* the pursuit of Happiness except to the well funded- the preamble is pretty clear about why the fed gov't was established- part of it is: secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves - restricting is the polar opposite of securing- laws, by definition (today) restrict. Period. Never mind that, originally, laws were meant to produce punishment for criminal activity-

But politics is all about forming groups to overcome other groups. It is the art of dividing and conquering.

After all, if all politicians decided to treat everyone equally, who would send them all their support and money?

No, the name of the game is giving perks to certain groups if they support you over the average Joe.

Usually, whoever forms the bigger collective wins.

Or as Orwell put it in his book animal farm, "All animals on animal farm are considered equal, only, some animals are more equal than the others."

Race is a good example of what I'm talking about. Race only matters when it comes to two things, the medical field and politics. In the medical field knowing genetics is key to knowing what medical conditions a person may face, but when it comes to politics race is a no brainer when it comes to dividing and conquering because there is an apparent difference between people. Early in US history, politicians used race to promote white above black and brown people because the others were considered "inferior". This was all done to create wealth and grab up much desired land for political power. Whites had the majority in terms of population and weaponry back in those days, so those seeking power sided with the racist view that whites were superior, even if they did not really believe it to be true. However, today, in the US those of color are breeding quicker and at some point will overcome whites in terms of population levels. So now the pendulum is swinging the other say as these same types of politicians are now hinting that whites are evil and those of color are superior. Now this will be used to take possessions and land from whitey just like they were used against darky in times past. Again, whether they believe it or not is secondary because it is all a quest for political power.

 

[Gdjjr]

But politics is all about forming groups to overcome other groups. It is the art of dividing and conquering.

After all, if all politicians decided to treat everyone equally, who would send them all their support and money?

No, the name of the game is giving perks to certain groups if they support you over the average Joe.

Usually, whoever forms the bigger collective wins.

Or as Orwell put it in his book animal farm, "All animals on animal farm are considered equal, only, some animals are more equal than the others."

That changes absolutely nothing I said-