Damn R.I.N.O.'s...... they only want to keep power for themselves........ Term limits are desperately needed.........
Will Congress ever have term limits? 4 Republicans sided with Democrats to kill latest proposal
Rep Ralph Norman tells Fox News Digital he will bring forward term limits legislation when a new president is elected
Term limits have been discussed for decades among voters and elected officials, leading many to question whether the possibility of such a change to the American political landscape could ever reach fruition.
A September 2023 poll found that a majority of adults, 87%, favor limits on the number of terms each member of Congress is allowed to serve.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/will-co...t-proposal
"4 Republicans sided with Democrats to kill latest proposal"
Your link is behind a paywall. What is the latest proposal that they killed?
(02-02-2024, 08:59 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]"4 Republicans sided with Democrats to kill latest proposal"
Your link is behind a paywall. What is the latest proposal that they killed?
It's not behind a paywall at Fox News...... Just need to enter your email address
But here's the bill.......
That bill,
H.J.Res.11, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, would have limited those serving in the House to three terms, for a total of six years, and those serving in the Senate to two terms, for a total of 12 years.
House Republicans who voted against the measure – Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Tom McClintock of California, Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin, and Harriet Hageman of Wyoming –
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-cong...es?r=1&s=9
(02-02-2024, 09:28 AM)The Drifter Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2024, 08:59 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]"4 Republicans sided with Democrats to kill latest proposal"
Your link is behind a paywall. What is the latest proposal that they killed?
It's not behind a paywall at Fox News...... Just need to enter your email address
But here's the bill.......
That bill, H.J.Res.11, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, would have limited those serving in the House to three terms, for a total of six years, and those serving in the Senate to two terms, for a total of 12 years.
House Republicans who voted against the measure – Reps. Darrell Issa of California, Tom McClintock of California, Scott Fitzgerald of Wisconsin, and Harriet Hageman of Wyoming –
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-cong...es?r=1&s=9
I think if it was up to me, I would make the term limits 12 years for Congress and 18 years for the Senate. If the term limits are too short, the government will wind up being run by a professional class of Congressional staffers. I'd want a combination of experience and turnover. I wouldn't want people serving 30 or 40 years, but on the other hand, I don't want people in there with little experience in how things work.
In principle term limits are a good idea. New blood is a good thing. It's good when young, gifted men and women can chart a possible career path in public service without saying "gosh I hope that guy dies soon so it can be my turn".
But that's not why people want term limits. People want term limits to reduce corruption. They absolutely will not do that. If anything term limits will increase corruption.
If you really want to reduce corruption, and reward the people who expose corruption, and punish the people who distract us from corruption with shiny-object divisive social issues, you need ranked-choice voting.
(02-02-2024, 09:45 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]In principle term limits are a good idea. New blood is a good thing. It's good when young, gifted men and women can chart a possible career path in public service without saying "gosh I hope that guy dies soon so it can be my turn".
But that's not why people want term limits. People want term limits to reduce corruption. They absolutely will not do that. If anything term limits will increase corruption.
If you really want to reduce corruption, and reward the people who expose corruption, and punish the people who distract us from corruption with shiny-object divisive social issues, you need ranked-choice voting.
Do you have any argument to support your theory?
Doubtful. Nobody likes to hear this, but, our "Democracy" is handicapped and dictated by a Plutocracy that uses pay to play and pay to win tactics to keep everything going in their direction at the expense of our foundational values, laws and ever degrading quality of life and freedom's in this country.
We all have a better shot at winning the lottery or a little bit of money on a scratch off ticket than these crooks and cronies ever being set to term limits. It's a pipe dream.
(02-02-2024, 01:15 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2024, 09:45 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]In principle term limits are a good idea. New blood is a good thing. It's good when young, gifted men and women can chart a possible career path in public service without saying "gosh I hope that guy dies soon so it can be my turn".
But that's not why people want term limits. People want term limits to reduce corruption. They absolutely will not do that. If anything term limits will increase corruption.
If you really want to reduce corruption, and reward the people who expose corruption, and punish the people who distract us from corruption with shiny-object divisive social issues, you need ranked-choice voting.
Do you have any argument to support your theory?
He doesn't. Which is hilarious to suggest that actually giving people four years to [BLEEP] you over less instead of forty or more years to [BLEEP] you over more is rich. Goes back to the lesser of two evils nonsense that righties and lefties like to hide behind every four years. We should be demanding better out of these people. Not settling.
When you have cancer, you cut the [BLEEP] out as quickly and as effectively as possible. You don't let it sit and fester so it can grow and cause further damages.
It's a pipe dream though. It'll never happen here. Best you can hope for is a massive paradigm shift of Mother Nature shaking everybody off like a bad case of dog fleas and the system resets with more accountability introduced at some point long after people like us are dead and gone.
(02-02-2024, 01:15 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2024, 09:45 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]In principle term limits are a good idea. New blood is a good thing. It's good when young, gifted men and women can chart a possible career path in public service without saying "gosh I hope that guy dies soon so it can be my turn".
But that's not why people want term limits. People want term limits to reduce corruption. They absolutely will not do that. If anything term limits will increase corruption.
If you really want to reduce corruption, and reward the people who expose corruption, and punish the people who distract us from corruption with shiny-object divisive social issues, you need ranked-choice voting.
Do you have any argument to support your theory?
Look at places with term limits. Tallahassee. Mexico. They aren't benefitting from it.
Think about it. Assume the system is corrupt. Where do new politicians come from in a corrupt system? Obviously, corrupt people behind the scenes recruit them and fund their campaigns. The people typically don't figure it out until they're in office and start doing what their backers paid them to do. But if you let them get established with their own name recognition, that's when they can start to make their own choices about who to do deals with and why.
(02-02-2024, 01:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2024, 01:15 PM)Sneakers Wrote: [ -> ]Do you have any argument to support your theory?
Look at places with term limits. Tallahassee. Mexico. They aren't benefitting from it.
Think about it. Assume the system is corrupt. Where do new politicians come from in a corrupt system? Obviously, corrupt people behind the scenes recruit them and fund their campaigns. The people typically don't figure it out until they're in office and start doing what their backers paid them to do. But if you let them get established with their own name recognition, that's when they can start to make their own choices about who to do deals with and why.
Mexico? MEXICO?
They have been wholly and totally corrupt since they started.
(02-02-2024, 04:10 PM)snarkyguy_he_him_his Wrote: [ -> ] (02-02-2024, 01:37 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Look at places with term limits. Tallahassee. Mexico. They aren't benefitting from it.
Think about it. Assume the system is corrupt. Where do new politicians come from in a corrupt system? Obviously, corrupt people behind the scenes recruit them and fund their campaigns. The people typically don't figure it out until they're in office and start doing what their backers paid them to do. But if you let them get established with their own name recognition, that's when they can start to make their own choices about who to do deals with and why.
Mexico? MEXICO?
They have been wholly and totally corrupt since they started.
And the term limits aren't helping.
They aren't helping in Tallahassee either.