Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on January 04, 2019, 12:02:02 PM
-
Cruz introduced a term limits bill for congress today. Good for him. Shocker: no "D" co-sponsors.
Side note 1: At the same times, Dems introduced a bill to eliminate the Electoral College.
Side note 2: What's with the beard? It makes him look a little like a Latin Dictator.
https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/01/04/hell-yes-ted-cruz-one-ups-dems-looking-to-eliminate-electoral-college-with-game-changing-legislation/
-
I get nervous thinking about changing the constitution.
I was against term limits before I was for them.
Seriously, in my more libertarian days I thought it was a bad idea.
Now I realize the inherent weakness of Democracy more fully and am in favor of anything that devolves power away from those who are masters of persuasion, and those who promise sumptin for nuttin.
Term limits are a reasonable obstacle to the accumulation of too much power.
We also need more financial transparency and a true free press.
-
At the risk of once again veering my own thread, term limits will be even more important if crap like this (Oh look! The Atlantic again!) comes to pass:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/heres-how-fix-senate/579172/
If more people like the Bronx Chick get in, this is exactly what they want. The amount of "socialism now!" talk I'm hearing from, not the fringe, but the mainstream, is getting scary. Freakin' Idiocracy was supposed to just be a movie.
-
Cruz has introduced this bill before, IIRC 2017? I predict the same thing will happen, absolutely nothing.
-
Cruz has introduced this bill before, IIRC 2017? I predict the same thing will happen, absolutely nothing.
Sadly, I have to agree. Too many of them are there for fame and money and power.
Goes back to the old story about the only people that would be good in those positions are the ones you would have to drag, kicking and screaming, into the chair.
-
I would go for a constitutional amendment that requires a shock collar be placed around the necks of congress critters. One family per state, picked by me, gets the control box that operates the collar. :old:
-
I would go for a constitutional amendment that requires a shock collar be placed around the necks of congress critters. One family per state, picked by me, picked at random and anonymous by law, gets the control box that operates the collar. :old:
No one would agree to your amendment and what happens when you die?
Random choice is a far better outcome.
-
Who said I was going to die?
-
I get nervous thinking about changing the constitution.
I was against term limits before I was for them.
Seriously, in my more libertarian days I thought it was a bad idea.
Now I realize the inherent weakness of Democracy more fully and am in favor of anything that devolves power away from those who are masters of persuasion, and those who promise sumptin for nuttin.
Term limits are a reasonable obstacle to the accumulation of too much power.
We also need more financial transparency and a true free press.
Don't forget the rainbow stew and free bubble-up
-
I get nervous thinking about changing the constitution.
I was against term limits before I was for them.
Seriously, in my more libertarian days I thought it was a bad idea.
Now I realize the inherent weakness of Democracy more fully and am in favor of anything that devolves power away from those who are masters of persuasion, and those who promise sumptin for nuttin.
Term limits are a reasonable obstacle to the accumulation of too much power.
We also need more financial transparency and a true free press.
I'm a flaming libertarian, but pragmatically under the system the way it is set up, abused and rigged against the people, one of the few ways left to try and reign it in is term limits.
-
I think in theory we shouldn't need term limits - "the will of the people" etc.
But that's just not the reality that I'm seeing.
-
I think in theory we shouldn't need term limits - "the will of the people" etc.
But that's just not the reality that I'm seeing.
I'd much prefer it that way. But if the 22nd Amendment was necessary (and it CLEARLY was), I think it's pretty clear that we can no longer trust congress to act in the best interest of the country without the force of law, either.
-
I would also want to make sure the limit was for any Federal elected office. No running for Senate when your House term limit comes up.
But yeah, it is not likely to happen. The people who control the vote calendar have been in office longer than the limits.
-
Sadly, I have to agree. Too many of them are there for fame and money and power.
Goes back to the old story about the only people that would be good in those positions are the ones you would have to drag, kicking and screaming, into the chair.
It goes back to "how do you get 535 people to agree to limit their own perqs and power?" Why would they time-limit an arrangement that works so well for them? People don't seem to think about that, when they talk up term limits.
-
Who said I was going to die?
Hillary?
-
It goes back to "how do you get 535 people to agree to limit their own perqs and power?" Why would they time-limit an arrangement that works so well for them? People don't seem to think about that, when they talk up term limits.
This is exactly why I think we need a national movement to always vote against incumbents. At the time of the founding of the country, it certainly wasn't the intent of the founders to create a de facto ruling class of lifetime politicians. The idea back then was for good people to give up a portion of their year to go to Congress and pass a few laws, then everyone would go back home and continue with business as usual. I truly believe that terms limits weren't written into the Constitution because the Founders probably never, ever considered the notion that someone would want to be a senator or a congresscritter for thirty of forty years.
-
This is exactly why I think we need a national movement to always vote against incumbents. At the time of the founding of the country, it certainly wasn't the intent of the founders to create a de facto ruling class of lifetime politicians. The idea back then was for good people to give up a portion of their year to go to Congress and pass a few laws, then everyone would go back home and continue with business as usual. I truly believe that terms limits weren't written into the Constitution because the Founders probably never, ever considered the notion that someone would want to be a senator or a congresscritter for thirty of forty years.
Exactly!
this is why I'm pretty much angry at the GOP/Bush establishment - they truly believe they are part of some kind of "Governing class"
6:23 - to 6:27 of this speech/Bush 43
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2YlVZxu_L0
-
This is exactly why I think we need a national movement to always vote against incumbents. At the time of the founding of the country, it certainly wasn't the intent of the founders to create a de facto ruling class of lifetime politicians. The idea back then was for good people to give up a portion of their year to go to Congress and pass a few laws, then everyone would go back home and continue with business as usual. I truly believe that terms limits weren't written into the Constitution because the Founders probably never, ever considered the notion that someone would want to be a senator or a congresscritter for thirty of forty years.
I used to believe that, because everyone said it. But is there any reason to think it's true? Weren't many of the founders career politicians themselves?
-
Washington tried to set the example...