Hmmm 🤔, what say you Libs?

thisisinsane

Well-known member

Why is the only MSM outlet the NYPost that is reporting this?
Isn’t this one issue that both sides (the ones that aren’t in those cushy positions) agree needs attention?
 

utsherman

Well-known member

Why is the only MSM outlet the NYPost that is reporting this?
Isn’t this one issue that both sides (the ones that aren’t in those cushy positions) agree needs attention?
I'm on board. Next stop, Supreme Court - right?
 

lc5397

Well-known member
Snowball’s chance. Also, never quite works out as intended. You end up with musical chairs with party favorites just shuffling around.

Also, leads to more polls going into lobbying. Would have to ban former polls from lobbying after the fact.
 

thisisinsane

Well-known member
Snowball’s chance. Also, never quite works out as intended. You end up with musical chairs with party favorites just shuffling around.

Also, leads to more polls going into lobbying. Would have to ban former polls from lobbying after the fact.
Yeah, definitely, I knew the excuses would fly in as to why it “simply won’t work”. With our Democratic controlled Congress, I thought equity/equality was a top priority? They could certainly figure out a WAY in which to make it work. However that would require two things:

1. Forget about bad man Trump and move forward and...
2. Actually working...
 

19AL63

Well-known member
Absolutely, I’m all for term limits! As far as SC, might be a little tricky just because it wouldn’t be good to have the SC completely flipping every time there is a new election, imo. Maybe a staggering of replacing 3 every so many years. Definitely open to it!
How about on the Supreme we say 65 age limited forced retirement or 15 years of service and out you go?
 

lc5397

Well-known member
Yeah, definitely, I knew the excuses would fly in as to why it “simply won’t work”. With our Democratic controlled Congress, I thought equity/equality was a top priority? They could certainly figure out a WAY in which to make it work. However that would require two things:

1. Forget about bad man Trump and move forward and...
2. Actually working...
Wouldn’t there need to be GOP support as well?
 

19AL63

Well-known member
Now as far as Congress in the House 6 years max Senate 12 years max. if you ever were a congress person you can run for the Senate but you only get one term of six. if you are a Senator and have one or two terms you can run for the house but two term limit.
 

thisisinsane

Well-known member
Wouldn’t there need to be GOP support as well?
You mean like Ted Cruz introducing it?

Why would other news outlets not report something like this? Maybe so rabid CNN watchers don’t see that the “other” side is working towards compromise? That would conflict with everything the MSM is currently saying about having to “re-educate” a certain side.
 

lc5397

Well-known member
And the support of what it is 2/3 of the states? This has to be done by making change to the Constitution if I am not wrong.
Correct. 2/3 of Congress then passage by the states. Or a Constitutional Convention (lol).
 

thisisinsane

Well-known member
You’d need at least 17 GOP Senators and about 90 GOP House reps.
Yeah, it’s called work, it’s not supposed to be easy. They have one at least. Are you presuming that only GOP Senators/Reps would be opposed to this? Because it would take the same support from both sides. Your point is moot. You’re basically saying “it would be too hard or require too much work”. Thats why we are in this very position.
 

lc5397

Well-known member
Yeah, it’s called work, it’s not supposed to be easy. They have one at least. Are you presuming that only GOP Senators/Reps would be opposed to this? Because it would take the same support from both sides. Your point is moot. You’re basically saying “it would be too hard or require too much work”. Thats why we are in this very position.
There’s a fine line between not doing the hard work and wasting time on something that has almost no chance.
 

thisisinsane

Well-known member
There’s a fine line between not doing the hard work and wasting time on something that has almost no chance.
Sounds good, just disregard Cruz’s attempt at some parity. Again, your attitude is why we’re in this position of just allowing politicians to do what they will.
Why are we impeaching a former President (working hard at it too) if it has almost “no chance”?
Glad you weren’t around the Wright brothers!
 

Starkbuck

Active member
I am all for the idea of term limits, but I am guessing that Teddy introduced this bill knowing full well it is DOA, but did it for a platform for re-election or future election. This is something widely agreed upon by voters of both parties, but there is little if any support in congress itself as it would abdicate the throne in which they have resided for so long.

I hope this gets some traction, but more likely than not it is a PR move for a guy who just lost an argument on Twitter, and looked beyond ignorant doing it. I wouldn't be shocked if this is a hail mary attempt to put some positive news with his name in news feeds.
 

MoeBiden

Member
My Representative has a referendum every 2 years on whether or not they are doing a good job. My Senators have a referendum every 6 years on whether or not they are doing a good job.

If the enough people of the district or state don't like the job they are doing, they get voted out.
 

warriorblue

Well-known member
Ted Cruz is a P.O.S. He is trying to dodamage control to start his re election process! We do need term limits but Cruz is trying to stir clear of all the B.S. the past 4 years!
 

thisisinsane

Well-known member
Ted Cruz is a P.O.S. He is trying to dodamage control to start his re election process! We do need term limits but Cruz is trying to stir clear of all the B.S. the past 4 years!
Great! He can be a P.O.S., maybe both sides can “stir” up the gall to hold all politicians to a standard. Has to start somewhere, I could care less if Charlie Manson introduced it, let’s get it done!
 

lc5397

Well-known member
While I'm generally for term limits, the actual outcomes aren't always great from states and other countries that have it. It's certainly been a mixed-bag in Ohio. As you can imagine, you can find think tank papers that both support and oppose federal term limits.




 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
So, voters can't decide on when enough is enough? Can't vote for who they want? Texas obviously likes crack pots like Curz and Gohmert, so we are going to deny morons the right to have jobs too?

I guess what you are all saying is that our system does not work.
 

thisisinsane

Well-known member
So, voters can't decide on when enough is enough? Can't vote for who they want? Texas obviously likes crack pots like Curz and Gohmert, so we are going to deny morons the right to have jobs too?

I guess what you are all saying is that our system does not work.
The “system” is designed to correct itself over time. The “system” allows for term limits to be applied, if, and this is important, the voters hold their elected officials accountable. If voters from both parties tell their political leaders that they certainly won’t be re-elected (even if re-election can only happen once) if they don’t figure out how to effectively implement term limits; don’t you think they’ll figure it out?

I know, the above is just “too hard” to accomplish, so just maintain status quo. Or there is this study or that study that says term limits work/don’t work.

Not sure about anyone else, but saying “it’s been tried before and didn’t work” is a weak excuse. This is a HS football website, could you imagine that being an acceptable attitude for a coach to have?

“Boys, that team is undefeated, 9 other teams have tried and failed, it certainly won’t be us to change that! Now let’s go play hard!”
 
.
Top