Gerrymandering and term limits

#26
#26
Velo Vol said:
The low approval ratings are for generic Congress, not the Congressperson the voters just voted in.

Incumbents have a number of advantages, helping them get reelected repeatedly.
Click to expand...

Term limits eliminate life long politicians. When people can make careers out of it, there will always be corruption.

And the generic number for congress shows that what is going on right now is obviously not working. If we are a republic, by the people, for the people, how is congress with such a dismal approval rating able to continue the same path? Term limits and restructuring of congressional districts is the only way to keep the peoples voices heard as well as represented most effectively.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#27
#27
OrangeWayOfLife said:
If term limits are so dumb and so easily fixed by just "voting them out" why do these people with a 10% approval rating keep holding office for decades? These two issues play hand in hand
Click to expand...

Because human nature tells us that it's not OUR guy that is the problem - it's always someone else's brain dead representative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
Septic said:
Because human nature tells us that it's not OUR guy that is the problem - it's always someone else's brain dead representative.
Click to expand...

Which is my point in changing these congressional districts that cater to one party. If a districts is made up of a fair amount of each red and blue, candidates will have to compromise on certain issues and will have a more central stance that will be more accurately representitive of their constituents
 
Last edited:
#29
#29
I'm good with term limits, let's include federal judges all the way to the SCOTUS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#32
#32
Burhead said:
I disagree on term limits. If term limits are required for the Presidency than it should follow the rest of the elected positions. I would like to see 6 years for the House and two term limit for Senators.
Click to expand...

Term limits should not be required for the POTUS. That Amendment was nothing more than reactionary bull-****.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#33
#33
Small Questions:

Do term-limits, by definition, limit the personal liberty I have to vote for the individual I think is the best qualified for the position?

Is this for the greater good?
 
#34
#34
therealUT said:
Term limits should not be required for the POTUS. That Amendment was nothing more than reactionary bull-****.
Click to expand...

Washington and Adams set forth the example, believing that prolonged service to the state would degenerate into inheritance. So from day one it's was determined that would be what's best for our country. The amendment didn't have to be passed until we had a president who didn't feel the need to adhere to the knowledge of those who came before him, a reactionary crock of bulls*** is far from the truth.
 
#35
#35
therealUT said:
Small Questions:

Do term-limits, by definition, limit the personal liberty I have to vote for the individual I think is the best qualified for the position?

Is this for the greater good?
Click to expand...

Is voting a liberty? it keeps people from being life long politicians.
 
#36
#36
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Washington and Adams set forth the example, believing that prolonged service to the state would degenerate into inheritance. So from day one it's was determined that would be what's best for our country. The amendment didn't have to be passed until we had a president who didn't feel the need to adhere to the knowledge of those who came before him, a reactionary crock of bulls*** is far from the truth.
Click to expand...

Sure, Washington and Adam set a non-binding precedent, and one that did not determine anything in the same manner in which laws determine things.

Theoretically, there is nothing good about the following:

You cannot vote for the best individual for the position because this individual has already served in this position.

It's bankrupt on all fronts, and the only reason the Amendment passed was because individuals who opposed FDR thought it was right and proper to ensure that the voters would not be allowed to vote for the person they wanted to vote for. It was inane, reactionary bull-**** (as well as a demonstration of the epitome of what it is to be a sore-loser).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#37
#37
therealUT said:
Small Questions:

Do term-limits, by definition, limit the personal liberty I have to vote for the individual I think is the best qualified for the position?

Is this for the greater good?
Click to expand...

The age limit, residency requirements, etc. also have the same effect. Ballot requirements do as well. Parties can limit as well. Many factors are involved.
 
#38
#38
OrangeWayOfLife said:
Is voting a liberty? it keeps people from being life long politicians.
Click to expand...

Yes, ability to vote is a liberty, and one of the more important liberties at that.

As for "keeps people from being life-long politicians"...also, a liberty. If one wants to be a life-long politician and others want to vote for this person to continue to be so, then why are you intent on restricting those liberties?

Is it for the greater good?

Thanks for playing.
 
#39
#39
therealUT said:
Small Questions:

Do term-limits, by definition, limit the personal liberty I have to vote for the individual I think is the best qualified for the position?

Is this for the greater good?
Click to expand...

No.

Lifetime judicial appointment do.
 
#40
#40
CSpindizzy said:
The age limit, residency requirements, etc. also have the same effect. Ballot requirements do as well. Parties can limit as well. Many factors are involved.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think there are plenty of liberties that are restricted across the board. The brilliant 34-year old does not have the liberty to genuinely run for President, even if, were he/she to be allowed to run, they would receive a majority of the electoral votes.

I think it is interesting that it is OWOL that started this thread and it is OWOL who ran the poll re: personal liberties and the greater good.
 
#41
#41
hog88 said:
No.

Lifetime judicial appointment do.
Click to expand...

So, you do not think that being allowed to vote for the individual you think is best suited for the job would fall under the domain of personal liberty?

Is this because you don't think it would fall under the domain of liberty? or, because you don't think it would fall under the domain of personal?
 
#42
#42
therealUT said:
Yes, ability to vote is a liberty, and one of the more important liberties at that.

As for "keeps people from being life-long politicians"...also, a liberty. If one wants to be a life-long politician and others want to vote for this person to continue to be so, then why are you intent on restricting those liberties?

Is it for the greater good?

Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

No it's not for the better. Life long politicians leave many voices in our population unattended to. When we allow these people to become political elite and hold these offices for so long, are we not slowly creeping towards tyranny?
 
#43
#43
therealUT said:
Agreed. I think there are plenty of liberties that are restricted across the board. The brilliant 34-year old does not have the liberty to genuinely run for President, even if, were he/she to be allowed to run, they would receive a majority of the electoral votes.

I think it is interesting that it is OWOL that started this thread and it is OWOL who ran the poll re: personal liberties and the greater good.
Click to expand...

OWOL is anti progressivism
 
#44
#44
OrangeWayOfLife said:
No it's not for the better. Life long politicians leave many voices in our population unattended to. When we allow these people to become political elite and hold these offices for so long, are we not slowly creeping towards tyranny?
Click to expand...

Wait, what? You think that term-limits would not be for the better?

You're in a hole and you don't even know which way is up, OWOL.

And, no, not having term-limits is not creeping toward tyranny. And, you, who have such a nostalgic love for the past, are under the impression that we are closer to tyranny today than we were a hundred years ago. Yet, 100 years ago, there were no term-limits on the POTUS; today there are. In fact, while Executive Power grew under FDR, it has increased far more under the Presidents who have been subject to term-limits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#45
#45
therealUT said:
Wait, what? You think that term-limits would not be for the better?

You're in a hole and you don't even know which way is up, OWOL.

And, no, not having term-limits is not creeping toward tyranny. And, you, who have such a nostalgic love for the past, are under the impression that we are closer to tyranny today than we were a hundred years ago. Yet, 100 years ago, there were no term-limits on the POTUS; today there are. In fact, while Executive Power grew under FDR, it has increased far more under the Presidents who have been subject to term-limits.
Click to expand...


We had progressives in office 100 years ago, and yes, term limits would be for the better. What we have going on right now is sure as hell working good, just check out the peoples approval.

Edit: and yes, in those 100 years progressives have continued to grow government and government interaction
 
#46
#46
therealUT said:
So, you do not think that being allowed to vote for the individual you think is best suited for the job would fall under the domain of personal liberty?

Is this because you don't think it would fall under the domain of liberty? or, because you don't think it would fall under the domain of personal?
Click to expand...

There are limits on many things set for various reasons. IMO long stretches in public office and especially the judiciary does more to limit personal liberties than what limiting terms would.
 
#47
#47
OrangeWayOfLife said:
We had progressives in office 100 years ago, and yes, term limits would be for the better. What we have going on right now is sure as hell working good, just check out the peoples approval.
Click to expand...

I don't let the "approval rating" of idiots guide my assessment of government.

Yes, we had the Progressive Movement 110-115 years ago. Yes, just like any other time in the history of the US Government, they did some things well and some things poorly. If you think that throwing the term "progressive" out there is automatically going to repulse me, you are dead wrong.

Yes, there is a problem with government, both today and 100 years ago and 200 years ago. If you think that problem is due to politicians not being legally limited in their terms of service, I'm off your wagon (which is a good wagon to be off of, since it is the wagon of deep inconsistency).
 
#48
#48
hog88 said:
There are limits on many things set for various reasons. IMO long stretches in public office and especially the judiciary does more to limit personal liberties than what limiting terms would.
Click to expand...

Long stretches of BAD officials in office does more to limit personal liberties than short stretches of BAD officials in office.

That is not an argument for term-limits, though.
 
#49
#49
therealUT said:
Long stretches of BAD officials in office does more to limit personal liberties than short stretches of BAD officials in office.

That is not an argument for term-limits, though.
Click to expand...

I wish that there was not a need for term limits, that each and every elected official went into office with the intent of serving. Sadly that isn't the case, most enter office on day 1 figuring out how to stay in office.

For elected officials I could set aside a call for term limits if we could make congress a part time job and pay accordingly.
 
#50
#50
hog88 said:
I wish that there was not a need for term limits, that each and every elected official went into office with the intent of serving. Sadly that isn't the case, most enter office on day 1 figuring out how to stay in office.

For elected officials I could set aside a call for term limits if we could make congress a part time job and pay accordingly.
Click to expand...

This. I think the pay ought to be reduced drastically. Congressmen should be paid enough to decently subsist, that's it. There should also be more Congressmen so that potential extra-income from lobbyists would have to be divided up among more persons, leaving them with less incentive to stay in office for long periods and less incentive to potentially compromise their career/integrity for a few small bribes.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top