Thank you Ted Cruz!

[Blues Man]

They also need term limits on the supreme court.

I don't agree with this:

Of course, this means someone could serve 18 years in the United States Congress, in addition to any other offices held, like governor, state senate or even President of the United States of America.

This wouldn’t wipe out career politicians, but it would certainly limit their capacity on a federal level — sans appointed judges.

I think there should be a mandatory retirement for supreme court justices rather than term limits

 

[Blues Man]

Its both. There are certain positions in which term limits is a bad idea. These are technocrats positions. Term limit my former position and you will run out of people to fill the position in a hurry. As it stands they are likely going to have to lower the qualifications for the position just to fill them especially in smaller countries. Many of the smaller countries have to import some one to fill the position. This is not the case in policy positions. I will say this let's kill gerrymandering first then see how it goes for a while. If that fixes things good. If not gotta think about term limits.

But the problem is you haven't made the case why term limits would be a good thing.

Other than some Congressmen garner too much power if they are there too long.

The real problem is our lack of engagement. As stated above, only 25% participate in primaries and only 37% can name their congressman. You think that's going to be helped by force-retiring them (even the effective ones) every six or 12 years? I don't.

The real problem is except for the political junkies, which describes almost everyone posting on USMB, most people are disengaged from this stuff. Even in a LIFE OR DEATH election this year, 80 million people didn't bother to vote.

Here's how you can fix a lot of the problems.

1) Get rid of Gerrymandering. Maybe even make Congress smaller so that the districts cover more people and are more diverse.

2) Get rid of the damned Electoral College so that more than 10 states end up counting.

3) Have all offices require 50% to win. That means runoffs, which is fine, and you can get more smaller parties and minority views involved.

4) Shorten the electoral season to only a few weeks so that these guys aren't as addicted to money as they are.

End of the day, though, The real problem remains... It's our own lack of engagement.

Trump didn't win because a majority agreed with him or even that most of the people embraced his racist viewpoint.

He won because he was a celebrity and we think celebrities have merit.

More Americans can tell you who won the Bachelor than name their own congressman, and that's the problem.

Tell me how does a Congressman go from a zero net worth when elected to having a muliti-million dollar net worth after just a few terms in office while making 175K a year?

Term limits also limit corruption

How to Go to Congress and Become a Millionaire

Why do we have a federal government that can so substantially ensure winners and losers in investments and our economy? Isn't a system like that prone to corruption? Don't we witness the effects of that corruption in legislation like Obamacare, or the cadillac benefits offered public employees...

townhall.com

 

[evenflow1969]

Its both. There are certain positions in which term limits is a bad idea. These are technocrats positions. Term limit my former position and you will run out of people to fill the position in a hurry. As it stands they are likely going to have to lower the qualifications for the position just to fill them especially in smaller countries. Many of the smaller countries have to import some one to fill the position. This is not the case in policy positions. I will say this let's kill gerrymandering first then see how it goes for a while. If that fixes things good. If not gotta think about term limits.

But the problem is you haven't made the case why term limits would be a good thing.

Other than some Congressmen garner too much power if they are there too long.

The real problem is our lack of engagement. As stated above, only 25% participate in primaries and only 37% can name their congressman. You think that's going to be helped by force-retiring them (even the effective ones) every six or 12 years? I don't.

The real problem is except for the political junkies, which describes almost everyone posting on USMB, most people are disengaged from this stuff. Even in a LIFE OR DEATH election this year, 80 million people didn't bother to vote.

Here's how you can fix a lot of the problems.

1) Get rid of Gerrymandering. Maybe even make Congress smaller so that the districts cover more people and are more diverse.

2) Get rid of the damned Electoral College so that more than 10 states end up counting.

3) Have all offices require 50% to win. That means runoffs, which is fine, and you can get more smaller parties and minority views involved.

4) Shorten the electoral season to only a few weeks so that these guys aren't as addicted to money as they are.

End of the day, though, The real problem remains... It's our own lack of engagement.

Trump didn't win because a majority agreed with him or even that most of the people embraced his racist viewpoint.

He won because he was a celebrity and we think celebrities have merit.

More Americans can tell you who won the Bachelor than name their own congressman, and that's the problem.

Tell me how does a Congressman go from a zero net worth when elected to having a muliti-million dollar net worth after just a few terms in office while making 175K a year?
It
Term limits also limit corruption

It is easy to say how things should be done. Installing changes are different. Term limits will cut down on corruption. How ever experience is very important in some positions. The cure could cause more problems than they solve. I am not for changing anything till I have a grip on how to change things. I will pick up the term limit fight when and if I better understand implementation and effect. I know this is strange on here but I am not clear on my position yet. There is a chance that ending gerrymandering could be all we need to level the playing field. I would prefer going that route seeing the effects and then making my decision. I am human and do not know everything. I would prefer to change one variable at a time . Gotta be careful creating laws.

 

[LeftofLeft]

They also need term limits on the supreme court.

I don't agree with this:

Of course, this means someone could serve 18 years in the United States Congress, in addition to any other offices held, like governor, state senate or even President of the United States of America.

This wouldn’t wipe out career politicians, but it would certainly limit their capacity on a federal level — sans appointed judges.

I agree with term limits on Supreme Court. What that number or term(s) is or how to come up with it I’m not sure but it is something I’d like to see. Courts should not be packed or stacked or watered down.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I think the way to change the system is from the bottom up, not top down. I bet even on a forum like this there's a surprising amount of ignorance when it comes to local politics. How many people here could tell me who their sheriff is without looking it up? Judges? Other local government? In some places an organized group of 50 people could flip a seat and create a serious impact locally. By far the biggest waves you can make as a voter are local, yet very few even keep up. Starting at the local level is also the best and probably the only way to get third parties rolling.

Correct.

And we already have term limits – they’re called elections.

Unfortunately they do not work as term limits. The imcomv

This thing has a snowball's chance in hell, but AT LEAST SOMEONE IS SAYING IT -- TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS:

We already have term limits for Congress, they're called "elections".

When someone talks about term limits, it's usually because they are upset that someone in another state or district has been there too long and has too much influence.

They don't work that way unfortunately. The incumbent wins like 90 percent of the time. We need term limits.

It's no mystery why incumbents win most of the time. While the electorate is otherwise barely paying attention, the incumbent is..

• Building a power base within their party
• Building a power base within their geographic area
• Bringing home the pork (like this COVID bill) for campaign time
• Playing ball with congressional leaders for plum committee roles and more PR
• Spending a HIGH percentage of their time thinking about how to play footsie with donors, using favors as leverage
• Doing favors that have nothing to do with serving their constituency
• Pushing the party's partisan agenda for campaign dollars and help
• Staying in front of their constituency in myriad ways

And those against term limits, who otherwise would scream about a "level playing field", don't care at all that the LAST thing this is, is a "level playing field". This is as tilted a playing field as anything in politics.

For maybe 80% of incumbents, all of that has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Only their party affiliation matters.

 

[Blues Man]

Its both. There are certain positions in which term limits is a bad idea. These are technocrats positions. Term limit my former position and you will run out of people to fill the position in a hurry. As it stands they are likely going to have to lower the qualifications for the position just to fill them especially in smaller countries. Many of the smaller countries have to import some one to fill the position. This is not the case in policy positions. I will say this let's kill gerrymandering first then see how it goes for a while. If that fixes things good. If not gotta think about term limits.

But the problem is you haven't made the case why term limits would be a good thing.

Other than some Congressmen garner too much power if they are there too long.

The real problem is our lack of engagement. As stated above, only 25% participate in primaries and only 37% can name their congressman. You think that's going to be helped by force-retiring them (even the effective ones) every six or 12 years? I don't.

The real problem is except for the political junkies, which describes almost everyone posting on USMB, most people are disengaged from this stuff. Even in a LIFE OR DEATH election this year, 80 million people didn't bother to vote.

Here's how you can fix a lot of the problems.

1) Get rid of Gerrymandering. Maybe even make Congress smaller so that the districts cover more people and are more diverse.

2) Get rid of the damned Electoral College so that more than 10 states end up counting.

3) Have all offices require 50% to win. That means runoffs, which is fine, and you can get more smaller parties and minority views involved.

4) Shorten the electoral season to only a few weeks so that these guys aren't as addicted to money as they are.

End of the day, though, The real problem remains... It's our own lack of engagement.

Trump didn't win because a majority agreed with him or even that most of the people embraced his racist viewpoint.

He won because he was a celebrity and we think celebrities have merit.

More Americans can tell you who won the Bachelor than name their own congressman, and that's the problem.

Tell me how does a Congressman go from a zero net worth when elected to having a muliti-million dollar net worth after just a few terms in office while making 175K a year?
It
Term limits also limit corruption

It is easy to say how things should be done. Installing changes are different. Term limits will cut down on corruption. How ever experience is very important in some positions. The cure could cause more problems than they solve. I am not for changing anything till I have a grip on how to change things. I will pick up the term limit fight when and if I better understand implementation and effect. I know this is strange on here but I am not clear on my position yet. There is a chance that ending gerrymandering could be all we need to level the playing field. I would prefer going that route seeing the effects and then making my decision. I am human and do not know everything. I would prefer to change one variable at a time . Gotta be careful creating laws.

Experience is easily passed down to new people.

Everyone is replaceable

 

[evenflow1969]

Its both. There are certain positions in which term limits is a bad idea. These are technocrats positions. Term limit my former position and you will run out of people to fill the position in a hurry. As it stands they are likely going to have to lower the qualifications for the position just to fill them especially in smaller countries. Many of the smaller countries have to import some one to fill the position. This is not the case in policy positions. I will say this let's kill gerrymandering first then see how it goes for a while. If that fixes things good. If not gotta think about term limits.

But the problem is you haven't made the case why term limits would be a good thing.

Other than some Congressmen garner too much power if they are there too long.

The real problem is our lack of engagement. As stated above, only 25% participate in primaries and only 37% can name their congressman. You think that's going to be helped by force-retiring them (even the effective ones) every six or 12 years? I don't.

The real problem is except for the political junkies, which describes almost everyone posting on USMB, most people are disengaged from this stuff. Even in a LIFE OR DEATH election this year, 80 million people didn't bother to vote.

Here's how you can fix a lot of the problems.

1) Get rid of Gerrymandering. Maybe even make Congress smaller so that the districts cover more people and are more diverse.

2) Get rid of the damned Electoral College so that more than 10 states end up counting.

3) Have all offices require 50% to win. That means runoffs, which is fine, and you can get more smaller parties and minority views involved.

4) Shorten the electoral season to only a few weeks so that these guys aren't as addicted to money as they are.

End of the day, though, The real problem remains... It's our own lack of engagement.

Trump didn't win because a majority agreed with him or even that most of the people embraced his racist viewpoint.

He won because he was a celebrity and we think celebrities have merit.

More Americans can tell you who won the Bachelor than name their own congressman, and that's the problem.

Tell me how does a Congressman go from a zero net worth when elected to having a muliti-million dollar net worth after just a few terms in office while making 175K a year?
It
Term limits also limit corruption

It is easy to say how things should be done. Installing changes are different. Term limits will cut down on corruption. How ever experience is very important in some positions. The cure could cause more problems than they solve. I am not for changing anything till I have a grip on how to change things. I will pick up the term limit fight when and if I better understand implementation and effect. I know this is strange on here but I am not clear on my position yet. There is a chance that ending gerrymandering could be all we need to level the playing field. I would prefer going that route seeing the effects and then making my decision. I am human and do not know everything. I would prefer to change one variable at a time . Gotta be careful creating laws.

Experience is easily passed down to new people.

Everyone is replaceable

Yep, so easy to replace. Wanna know what happened to my uncles car dealership after he died? Wanna know what happened to Central Soya after another uncle died?

 

[Blues Man]

Its both. There are certain positions in which term limits is a bad idea. These are technocrats positions. Term limit my former position and you will run out of people to fill the position in a hurry. As it stands they are likely going to have to lower the qualifications for the position just to fill them especially in smaller countries. Many of the smaller countries have to import some one to fill the position. This is not the case in policy positions. I will say this let's kill gerrymandering first then see how it goes for a while. If that fixes things good. If not gotta think about term limits.

But the problem is you haven't made the case why term limits would be a good thing.

Other than some Congressmen garner too much power if they are there too long.

The real problem is our lack of engagement. As stated above, only 25% participate in primaries and only 37% can name their congressman. You think that's going to be helped by force-retiring them (even the effective ones) every six or 12 years? I don't.

The real problem is except for the political junkies, which describes almost everyone posting on USMB, most people are disengaged from this stuff. Even in a LIFE OR DEATH election this year, 80 million people didn't bother to vote.

Here's how you can fix a lot of the problems.

1) Get rid of Gerrymandering. Maybe even make Congress smaller so that the districts cover more people and are more diverse.

2) Get rid of the damned Electoral College so that more than 10 states end up counting.

3) Have all offices require 50% to win. That means runoffs, which is fine, and you can get more smaller parties and minority views involved.

4) Shorten the electoral season to only a few weeks so that these guys aren't as addicted to money as they are.

End of the day, though, The real problem remains... It's our own lack of engagement.

Trump didn't win because a majority agreed with him or even that most of the people embraced his racist viewpoint.

He won because he was a celebrity and we think celebrities have merit.

More Americans can tell you who won the Bachelor than name their own congressman, and that's the problem.

Tell me how does a Congressman go from a zero net worth when elected to having a muliti-million dollar net worth after just a few terms in office while making 175K a year?
It
Term limits also limit corruption

It is easy to say how things should be done. Installing changes are different. Term limits will cut down on corruption. How ever experience is very important in some positions. The cure could cause more problems than they solve. I am not for changing anything till I have a grip on how to change things. I will pick up the term limit fight when and if I better understand implementation and effect. I know this is strange on here but I am not clear on my position yet. There is a chance that ending gerrymandering could be all we need to level the playing field. I would prefer going that route seeing the effects and then making my decision. I am human and do not know everything. I would prefer to change one variable at a time . Gotta be careful creating laws.

Experience is easily passed down to new people.

Everyone is replaceable

Yep, so easy to replace. Wanna know what happened to my uncles car dealership after he died? Wanna know what happened to Central Soya after another uncle died?

you replaced him with the wrong people

 

[evenflow1969]

Its both. There are certain positions in which term limits is a bad idea. These are technocrats positions. Term limit my former position and you will run out of people to fill the position in a hurry. As it stands they are likely going to have to lower the qualifications for the position just to fill them especially in smaller countries. Many of the smaller countries have to import some one to fill the position. This is not the case in policy positions. I will say this let's kill gerrymandering first then see how it goes for a while. If that fixes things good. If not gotta think about term limits.

But the problem is you haven't made the case why term limits would be a good thing.

Other than some Congressmen garner too much power if they are there too long.

The real problem is our lack of engagement. As stated above, only 25% participate in primaries and only 37% can name their congressman. You think that's going to be helped by force-retiring them (even the effective ones) every six or 12 years? I don't.

The real problem is except for the political junkies, which describes almost everyone posting on USMB, most people are disengaged from this stuff. Even in a LIFE OR DEATH election this year, 80 million people didn't bother to vote.

Here's how you can fix a lot of the problems.

1) Get rid of Gerrymandering. Maybe even make Congress smaller so that the districts cover more people and are more diverse.

2) Get rid of the damned Electoral College so that more than 10 states end up counting.

3) Have all offices require 50% to win. That means runoffs, which is fine, and you can get more smaller parties and minority views involved.

4) Shorten the electoral season to only a few weeks so that these guys aren't as addicted to money as they are.

End of the day, though, The real problem remains... It's our own lack of engagement.

Trump didn't win because a majority agreed with him or even that most of the people embraced his racist viewpoint.

He won because he was a celebrity and we think celebrities have merit.

More Americans can tell you who won the Bachelor than name their own congressman, and that's the problem.

Tell me how does a Congressman go from a zero net worth when elected to having a muliti-million dollar net worth after just a few terms in office while making 175K a year?
It
Term limits also limit corruption

It is easy to say how things should be done. Installing changes are different. Term limits will cut down on corruption. How ever experience is very important in some positions. The cure could cause more problems than they solve. I am not for changing anything till I have a grip on how to change things. I will pick up the term limit fight when and if I better understand implementation and effect. I know this is strange on here but I am not clear on my position yet. There is a chance that ending gerrymandering could be all we need to level the playing field. I would prefer going that route seeing the effects and then making my decision. I am human and do not know everything. I would prefer to change one variable at a time . Gotta be careful creating laws.

Experience is easily passed down to new people.

Everyone is replaceable

Yep, so easy to replace. Wanna know what happened to my uncles car dealership after he died? Wanna know what happened to Central Soya after another uncle died?

you replaced him with the wrong people

I replaced nobody was not my job. I was not involved with either business. I am sure who ever was in charge tried like hell to get the right people. It ain't easy. How long will it take for the patriots to win another superbowl after Brady is gone? When will Dallas win another after Aikman? My uncles car dealership was sold. That was just who had the money. I know nothing of the people who were in charge at Central Soya. It was a huge corporation that I never walked around. Another example is Roberds furniture after Kenny Fletcher went public and sold all his interest. How about Schottensteins after Joe senior died.

 

[Mac-7]

They also need term limits on the supreme court.

I don't agree with this:

Of course, this means someone could serve 18 years in the United States Congress, in addition to any other offices held, like governor, state senate or even President of the United States of America.

This wouldn’t wipe out career politicians, but it would certainly limit their capacity on a federal level — sans appointed judges.

I think there should be a mandatory retirement for supreme court justices rather than term limits

And if lower court judges are overturned three times they should be removed from the bench

 

[Blues Man]

Its both. There are certain positions in which term limits is a bad idea. These are technocrats positions. Term limit my former position and you will run out of people to fill the position in a hurry. As it stands they are likely going to have to lower the qualifications for the position just to fill them especially in smaller countries. Many of the smaller countries have to import some one to fill the position. This is not the case in policy positions. I will say this let's kill gerrymandering first then see how it goes for a while. If that fixes things good. If not gotta think about term limits.

But the problem is you haven't made the case why term limits would be a good thing.

Other than some Congressmen garner too much power if they are there too long.

The real problem is our lack of engagement. As stated above, only 25% participate in primaries and only 37% can name their congressman. You think that's going to be helped by force-retiring them (even the effective ones) every six or 12 years? I don't.

The real problem is except for the political junkies, which describes almost everyone posting on USMB, most people are disengaged from this stuff. Even in a LIFE OR DEATH election this year, 80 million people didn't bother to vote.

Here's how you can fix a lot of the problems.

1) Get rid of Gerrymandering. Maybe even make Congress smaller so that the districts cover more people and are more diverse.

2) Get rid of the damned Electoral College so that more than 10 states end up counting.

3) Have all offices require 50% to win. That means runoffs, which is fine, and you can get more smaller parties and minority views involved.

4) Shorten the electoral season to only a few weeks so that these guys aren't as addicted to money as they are.

End of the day, though, The real problem remains... It's our own lack of engagement.

Trump didn't win because a majority agreed with him or even that most of the people embraced his racist viewpoint.

He won because he was a celebrity and we think celebrities have merit.

More Americans can tell you who won the Bachelor than name their own congressman, and that's the problem.

Tell me how does a Congressman go from a zero net worth when elected to having a muliti-million dollar net worth after just a few terms in office while making 175K a year?
It
Term limits also limit corruption

It is easy to say how things should be done. Installing changes are different. Term limits will cut down on corruption. How ever experience is very important in some positions. The cure could cause more problems than they solve. I am not for changing anything till I have a grip on how to change things. I will pick up the term limit fight when and if I better understand implementation and effect. I know this is strange on here but I am not clear on my position yet. There is a chance that ending gerrymandering could be all we need to level the playing field. I would prefer going that route seeing the effects and then making my decision. I am human and do not know everything. I would prefer to change one variable at a time . Gotta be careful creating laws.

Experience is easily passed down to new people.

Everyone is replaceable

Yep, so easy to replace. Wanna know what happened to my uncles car dealership after he died? Wanna know what happened to Central Soya after another uncle died?

you replaced him with the wrong people

I replaced nobody was not my job. I was not involved with either business. I am sure who ever was in charge tried like hell to get the right people. It ain't easy. How long will it take for the patriots to win another superbowl after Brady is gone? When will Dallas win another after Aikman? My uncles car dealership was sold. That was just who had the money. I know nothing of the people who were in charge at Central Soya. It was a huge corporation that I never walked around. Another example is Roberds furniture after Kenny Fletcher went public and sold all his interest. How about Schottensteins after Joe senior died.

for one a congressman cannot be compared to a small business owner as he owns nothing he is managing he doesn't have to meet payroll, pay taxes, buy insurance etc etc.

There is no real experience needed to sit on an appropriations committee or any other congressional committee as there will always be people with a longer time in office sitting on that committee and the junior members will attain the leadership position by attrition after being on that committee for a few years.

 

[Blues Man]

They also need term limits on the supreme court.

I don't agree with this:

Of course, this means someone could serve 18 years in the United States Congress, in addition to any other offices held, like governor, state senate or even President of the United States of America.

This wouldn’t wipe out career politicians, but it would certainly limit their capacity on a federal level — sans appointed judges.

I think there should be a mandatory retirement for supreme court justices rather than term limits

And if lower court judges are overturned three times they should be removed from the bench

possibly

 

[evenflow1969]

Its both. There are certain positions in which term limits is a bad idea. These are technocrats positions. Term limit my former position and you will run out of people to fill the position in a hurry. As it stands they are likely going to have to lower the qualifications for the position just to fill them especially in smaller countries. Many of the smaller countries have to import some one to fill the position. This is not the case in policy positions. I will say this let's kill gerrymandering first then see how it goes for a while. If that fixes things good. If not gotta think about term limits.

But the problem is you haven't made the case why term limits would be a good thing.

Other than some Congressmen garner too much power if they are there too long.

The real problem is our lack of engagement. As stated above, only 25% participate in primaries and only 37% can name their congressman. You think that's going to be helped by force-retiring them (even the effective ones) every six or 12 years? I don't.

The real problem is except for the political junkies, which describes almost everyone posting on USMB, most people are disengaged from this stuff. Even in a LIFE OR DEATH election this year, 80 million people didn't bother to vote.

Here's how you can fix a lot of the problems.

1) Get rid of Gerrymandering. Maybe even make Congress smaller so that the districts cover more people and are more diverse.

2) Get rid of the damned Electoral College so that more than 10 states end up counting.

3) Have all offices require 50% to win. That means runoffs, which is fine, and you can get more smaller parties and minority views involved.

4) Shorten the electoral season to only a few weeks so that these guys aren't as addicted to money as they are.

End of the day, though, The real problem remains... It's our own lack of engagement.

Trump didn't win because a majority agreed with him or even that most of the people embraced his racist viewpoint.

He won because he was a celebrity and we think celebrities have merit.

More Americans can tell you who won the Bachelor than name their own congressman, and that's the problem.

Tell me how does a Congressman go from a zero net worth when elected to having a muliti-million dollar net worth after just a few terms in office while making 175K a year?
It
Term limits also limit corruption

It is easy to say how things should be done. Installing changes are different. Term limits will cut down on corruption. How ever experience is very important in some positions. The cure could cause more problems than they solve. I am not for changing anything till I have a grip on how to change things. I will pick up the term limit fight when and if I better understand implementation and effect. I know this is strange on here but I am not clear on my position yet. There is a chance that ending gerrymandering could be all we need to level the playing field. I would prefer going that route seeing the effects and then making my decision. I am human and do not know everything. I would prefer to change one variable at a time . Gotta be careful creating laws.

Experience is easily passed down to new people.

Everyone is replaceable

Yep, so easy to replace. Wanna know what happened to my uncles car dealership after he died? Wanna know what happened to Central Soya after another uncle died?

you replaced him with the wrong people

I replaced nobody was not my job. I was not involved with either business. I am sure who ever was in charge tried like hell to get the right people. It ain't easy. How long will it take for the patriots to win another superbowl after Brady is gone? When will Dallas win another after Aikman? My uncles car dealership was sold. That was just who had the money. I know nothing of the people who were in charge at Central Soya. It was a huge corporation that I never walked around. Another example is Roberds furniture after Kenny Fletcher went public and sold all his interest. How about Schottensteins after Joe senior died.

for one a congressman cannot be compared to a small business owner as he owns nothing he is managing he doesn't have to meet payroll, pay taxes, buy insurance etc etc.

There is no real experience needed to sit on an appropriations committee or any other congressional committee as there will always be people with a longer time in office sitting on that committee and the junior members will attain the leadership position by attrition after being on that committee for a few years.

Not the same I agree. One aint gunna change much it will not effect one at a time though. Congressman will not be the only office effected. Other jobs like county engineering is different. You would not want a first year engineer to have do with anything involving buying right of way from a railroad. The railroad would walk all over him. Would not be good for the public. The devil is in the details.

 

[Mac-7]

possibly

No question about it

either they are dishonest or stupid

 

[Blues Man]

Its both. There are certain positions in which term limits is a bad idea. These are technocrats positions. Term limit my former position and you will run out of people to fill the position in a hurry. As it stands they are likely going to have to lower the qualifications for the position just to fill them especially in smaller countries. Many of the smaller countries have to import some one to fill the position. This is not the case in policy positions. I will say this let's kill gerrymandering first then see how it goes for a while. If that fixes things good. If not gotta think about term limits.

But the problem is you haven't made the case why term limits would be a good thing.

Other than some Congressmen garner too much power if they are there too long.

The real problem is our lack of engagement. As stated above, only 25% participate in primaries and only 37% can name their congressman. You think that's going to be helped by force-retiring them (even the effective ones) every six or 12 years? I don't.

The real problem is except for the political junkies, which describes almost everyone posting on USMB, most people are disengaged from this stuff. Even in a LIFE OR DEATH election this year, 80 million people didn't bother to vote.

Here's how you can fix a lot of the problems.

1) Get rid of Gerrymandering. Maybe even make Congress smaller so that the districts cover more people and are more diverse.

2) Get rid of the damned Electoral College so that more than 10 states end up counting.

3) Have all offices require 50% to win. That means runoffs, which is fine, and you can get more smaller parties and minority views involved.

4) Shorten the electoral season to only a few weeks so that these guys aren't as addicted to money as they are.

End of the day, though, The real problem remains... It's our own lack of engagement.

Trump didn't win because a majority agreed with him or even that most of the people embraced his racist viewpoint.

He won because he was a celebrity and we think celebrities have merit.

More Americans can tell you who won the Bachelor than name their own congressman, and that's the problem.

Tell me how does a Congressman go from a zero net worth when elected to having a muliti-million dollar net worth after just a few terms in office while making 175K a year?
It
Term limits also limit corruption

It is easy to say how things should be done. Installing changes are different. Term limits will cut down on corruption. How ever experience is very important in some positions. The cure could cause more problems than they solve. I am not for changing anything till I have a grip on how to change things. I will pick up the term limit fight when and if I better understand implementation and effect. I know this is strange on here but I am not clear on my position yet. There is a chance that ending gerrymandering could be all we need to level the playing field. I would prefer going that route seeing the effects and then making my decision. I am human and do not know everything. I would prefer to change one variable at a time . Gotta be careful creating laws.

Experience is easily passed down to new people.

Everyone is replaceable

Yep, so easy to replace. Wanna know what happened to my uncles car dealership after he died? Wanna know what happened to Central Soya after another uncle died?

you replaced him with the wrong people

I replaced nobody was not my job. I was not involved with either business. I am sure who ever was in charge tried like hell to get the right people. It ain't easy. How long will it take for the patriots to win another superbowl after Brady is gone? When will Dallas win another after Aikman? My uncles car dealership was sold. That was just who had the money. I know nothing of the people who were in charge at Central Soya. It was a huge corporation that I never walked around. Another example is Roberds furniture after Kenny Fletcher went public and sold all his interest. How about Schottensteins after Joe senior died.

for one a congressman cannot be compared to a small business owner as he owns nothing he is managing he doesn't have to meet payroll, pay taxes, buy insurance etc etc.

There is no real experience needed to sit on an appropriations committee or any other congressional committee as there will always be people with a longer time in office sitting on that committee and the junior members will attain the leadership position by attrition after being on that committee for a few years.

Not the same I agree. One aint gunna change much it will not effect one at a time though. Congressman will not be the only office effected. Other jobs like county engineering is different. You would not want a first year engineer to have do with anything involving buying right of way from a railroad. The railroad would walk all over him. Would not be good for the public. The devil is in the details.

where in this thread were county offices even mentioned?

and for the most part engineers who wind up working for some county aren't the best and brightest are they?

 

[JoeB131]

Tell me how does a Congressman go from a zero net worth when elected to having a muliti-million dollar net worth after just a few terms in office while making 175K a year?

Term limits also limit corruption

If you have any proof of corruption, you should call the US attorney's office.

Seems to me most of these guys probably make good investments and their spouses probably don't stop working.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Dimocrats love their career politicians. They flourish in the swamp.

 

[evenflow1969]

Its both. There are certain positions in which term limits is a bad idea. These are technocrats positions. Term limit my former position and you will run out of people to fill the position in a hurry. As it stands they are likely going to have to lower the qualifications for the position just to fill them especially in smaller countries. Many of the smaller countries have to import some one to fill the position. This is not the case in policy positions. I will say this let's kill gerrymandering first then see how it goes for a while. If that fixes things good. If not gotta think about term limits.

But the problem is you haven't made the case why term limits would be a good thing.

Other than some Congressmen garner too much power if they are there too long.

The real problem is our lack of engagement. As stated above, only 25% participate in primaries and only 37% can name their congressman. You think that's going to be helped by force-retiring them (even the effective ones) every six or 12 years? I don't.

The real problem is except for the political junkies, which describes almost everyone posting on USMB, most people are disengaged from this stuff. Even in a LIFE OR DEATH election this year, 80 million people didn't bother to vote.

Here's how you can fix a lot of the problems.

1) Get rid of Gerrymandering. Maybe even make Congress smaller so that the districts cover more people and are more diverse.

2) Get rid of the damned Electoral College so that more than 10 states end up counting.

3) Have all offices require 50% to win. That means runoffs, which is fine, and you can get more smaller parties and minority views involved.

4) Shorten the electoral season to only a few weeks so that these guys aren't as addicted to money as they are.

End of the day, though, The real problem remains... It's our own lack of engagement.

Trump didn't win because a majority agreed with him or even that most of the people embraced his racist viewpoint.

He won because he was a celebrity and we think celebrities have merit.

More Americans can tell you who won the Bachelor than name their own congressman, and that's the problem.

Tell me how does a Congressman go from a zero net worth when elected to having a muliti-million dollar net worth after just a few terms in office while making 175K a year?
It
Term limits also limit corruption

It is easy to say how things should be done. Installing changes are different. Term limits will cut down on corruption. How ever experience is very important in some positions. The cure could cause more problems than they solve. I am not for changing anything till I have a grip on how to change things. I will pick up the term limit fight when and if I better understand implementation and effect. I know this is strange on here but I am not clear on my position yet. There is a chance that ending gerrymandering could be all we need to level the playing field. I would prefer going that route seeing the effects and then making my decision. I am human and do not know everything. I would prefer to change one variable at a time . Gotta be careful creating laws.

Experience is easily passed down to new people.

Everyone is replaceable

Yep, so easy to replace. Wanna know what happened to my uncles car dealership after he died? Wanna know what happened to Central Soya after another uncle died?

you replaced him with the wrong people

I replaced nobody was not my job. I was not involved with either business. I am sure who ever was in charge tried like hell to get the right people. It ain't easy. How long will it take for the patriots to win another superbowl after Brady is gone? When will Dallas win another after Aikman? My uncles car dealership was sold. That was just who had the money. I know nothing of the people who were in charge at Central Soya. It was a huge corporation that I never walked around. Another example is Roberds furniture after Kenny Fletcher went public and sold all his interest. How about Schottensteins after Joe senior died.

for one a congressman cannot be compared to a small business owner as he owns nothing he is managing he doesn't have to meet payroll, pay taxes, buy insurance etc etc.

There is no real experience needed to sit on an appropriations committee or any other congressional committee as there will always be people with a longer time in office sitting on that committee and the junior members will attain the leadership position by attrition after being on that committee for a few years.

Not the same I agree. One aint gunna change much it will not effect one at a time though. Congressman will not be the only office effected. Other jobs like county engineering is different. You would not want a first year engineer to have do with anything involving buying right of way from a railroad. The railroad would walk all over him. Would not be good for the public. The devil is in the details.

where in this thread were county offices even mentioned?

and for the most part engineers who wind up working for some county aren't the best and brightest are they?

They may or may not be. Not every one is motivated by money. Some have a calling to service. Back in the old days you could be county engineer and still run your own business. That is not the way it is today. I personally would not have had to work a day in my life. I just wanted to. I collect a retirement check and started a new business. There is big bucks designing subdivisions. It is not very interesting or difficult though. For a civil government offers the most challenging work. Not many 30 span bridges to design in a subdivision. I know that two or three years ago the national engineer of the year award went to a civil that was county engineer. That was for all disciplines. The same guy won it a couple of times for just civil. I suppose a guy that has his bridge program and matching funds program installed across 90 percent of counties across the United States might know what he is doing. How do we get to county? You start putting in term limits and they work. It is just a matter of time before other positions go the same way. You know the whole slippery sloap thing and all.

 

[dudmuck]

Tell me how does a Congressman go from a zero net worth when elected to having a muliti-million dollar net worth after just a few terms in office while making 175K a year?

Term limits also limit corruption

If you have any proof of corruption, you should call the US attorney's office.

Seems to me most of these guys probably make good investments and their spouses probably don't stop working.

Ted Cruz’s Georgia Runoff Fundraising Is Actually Going to His Campaign. He's Not Alone

The runoff is a gold mine for politicians. And now that they can run Facebook ads in Georgia, they’re rushing for it.

www.thedailybeast.com

Republicans faithfully grifting the fuck out of anyone they can including each other is up there for me, like when the president embezzled his four years of fundraising