Let's Get Real regarding Term Limits/Age Requirements/Lobbyist

#51
#51
volinbham said:
Isn't that the government telling you who you can vote for to represent you?

Here's a more realistic one - should the person you want to represent you have to live in the area of representation? If so why is that restriction okay but others are not?

Technically too since you can write in someone you can vote for anyone - some just can't win but your vote is not constrained
Click to expand...
Established contract law is govt telling me who I can vote for? I don't agree with that.

If people want it then that's fine and another needless law can get passed. I just hope they realize it's being done because they don't value their vote. Just need you don't like the other person's policies doesn't mean you use the govt to remove them from the discussion
 
#52
#52
utvolpj said:
Established contract law is govt telling me who I can vote for? I don't agree with that.

If people want it then that's fine and another needless law can get passed. I just hope they realize it's being done because they don't value their vote. Just need you don't like the other person's policies doesn't mean you use the govt to remove them from the discussion
Click to expand...

On the first part it is since government ultimately controls the law and if a person is disqualified due to law then you can choose who represents you.
 
#53
#53
I've always thought that the states should bear the burden of the "costs" of their elected officials in Washington. All of the costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandman 423
#56
#56
Sudden Impact said:
Discussion Opened with the following... The Constitution was written at a time when the Life Expectancy was 35 years old.

Term Limits --
House* - 10 years 5 Terms must Sit out for 4 years and run again.
Senate* - 12 years 2 terms sit for 4-6 years.
Supreme Court - 20 Years
President -- No change stays the same
*No Family member can run to hold seat.


Age Requirement --
Cut off is 70 to enter Race

Lobbyist

Applies to All - No one member serving can apply (At any time) nor can a Family Member hold a Lobbyist Position until they have been out of office for 5 years.

Rip away...The founding fathers did not anticipate that the Life Expectancy of an American would double. They also did not conceive that a Member would serve longer than the Life Expectancy.

The members of Congress need to experience the life that they are affecting on a daily basis.

Sometimes turnover is good.
Click to expand...
You realize most of the Founders lived well into their 60’s? And some lived past 80, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and McDad
#58
#58
A pointless argument. We’re never going to have enough politicians agree to limit themselves.
 
#64
#64
Sudden Impact said:
Discussion Opened with the following... The Constitution was written at a time when the Life Expectancy was 35 years old.

Term Limits --
House* - 10 years 5 Terms must Sit out for 4 years and run again.
Senate* - 12 years 2 terms sit for 4-6 years.
Supreme Court - 20 Years
President -- No change stays the same
*No Family member can run to hold seat.


Age Requirement --
Cut off is 70 to enter Race

Lobbyist

Applies to All - No one member serving can apply (At any time) nor can a Family Member hold a Lobbyist Position until they have been out of office for 5 years.

Rip away...The founding fathers did not anticipate that the Life Expectancy of an American would double. They also did not conceive that a Member would serve longer than the Life Expectancy.

The members of Congress need to experience the life that they are affecting on a daily basis.

Sometimes turnover is good.
Click to expand...

I'm all for term limits on SCOTUS. We don't elect them, they are appointed for life, and also we're not supposed to be able to protest them? It's confounding.

As for term limits for elected reps, I'm not so sure it does good on the net. There is some research showing that special interests tend to have more influence over inexperienced reps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact
#66
#66
n_huffhines said:
I'm all for term limits on SCOTUS. We don't elect them, they are appointed for life, and also we're not supposed to be able to protest them? It's confounding.

As for term limits for elected reps, I'm not so sure it does good on the net. There is some research showing that special interests tend to have more influence over inexperienced reps.
Click to expand...
Protest all you want. Outside a house is intimidation or as of last week potential homicide.
 
#67
#67
If you can't make farting sounds with your arm pits and soap bubbles you are disqualified from running. People with no arms get a one time exemption.

Hey, you might as well include this because nothing is going to change. I guarantee it.
 
#68
#68
85SugarVol said:
You realize most of the Founders lived well into their 60’s? And some lived past 80, right?
Click to expand...
Yes I do. There was only 13 Colonies, Indians existed, To survive in that period required the strength of an Ox, Darwin in full force of which 80 % in today's society would not exist in those conditions.
Even more reason to adjust the rules of Congress.
 
Last edited:
#69
#69
rekinhavoc said:
2 terms for everything.
4 years as a congressman
8 years as a senator (change term from 6)

No stock trading in office
No pension
No stipends
No lifetime Healthcare
No accepting gifts
No lobbying after
Pay is fluid on how well the economy is doing.
No raises you're on commission .

Every year each party gets to treat congress like a jury.

Each party gets to remove 5 members from their own party or the opposing party ( replacements will be of the same party removed)

Each party gets one save.
Click to expand...

Hard no for me on that one. I like having a diversity of thought even within the same party. It should be celebrated and not vilified.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#70
#70
ClearwaterVol said:
Hard no for me on that one. I like having a diversity of thought even within the same party. It should be celebrated and not vilified.
Click to expand...
But you’re ok with years of insider trading and wealth accumulation through the power of the position? Nothing wrong with diversity. Just comes within a shorter window if done correctly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact
#71
#71
Majors said:
But you’re ok with years of insider trading and wealth accumulation through the power of the position? Nothing wrong with diversity. Just comes within a shorter window if done correctly.
Click to expand...

There is a process by which a lawmaker can be removed for misconduct. What was described there was just a manner in which to create a lock step party where a differing opinion could cost you a job the people of your state elected you to perform.
 
#72
#72
ClearwaterVol said:
There is a process by which a lawmaker can be removed for misconduct. What was described there was just a manner in which to create a lock step party where a differing opinion could cost you a job the people of your state elected you to perform.
Click to expand...
Process is broken because of years of silence to not disrupt the status quo. Had that been the case, Pelosi Visa insider trading would have pushed her out 15 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sudden Impact
#74
#74
ClearwaterVol said:
There is a process by which a lawmaker can be removed for misconduct. What was described there was just a manner in which to create a lock step party where a differing opinion could cost you a job the people of your state elected you to perform.
Click to expand...
To Perform for them, not to increase your wealth or Power in the House or Senate.
The Performance in Congress has been Nil the last 20 years. How do the People hold them accountable? Voting? Party Line Voting will never hold anybody accountable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Majors
#75
#75
Would it be wrong to suggest politicians meet an IQ requirement as well?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top