Term Limits for Congress

#126
#126
Grand Vol said:
But Soros is DIFFERENT! It's OKAY as long as I agree with whatever they are promoting.
Click to expand...
Of course he is. I realize that.

But I really do wonder what exactly what is the purpose of campaign finance reform would be. How would it be enacted and enforced? The gazillionaires will have no problem circumventing any roadblocks put before them so what is the purpose? Kabuki? To make us 'feel' like we are 'doing something'? Yet real measures to prevent voter fraud are beyond consideration. (yes I know the libs don't want campaign finance reform either)

It's really mind boggling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#127
#127
hog88 said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Article I places the onus on the state legislatures to appoint senators. Sounds good, in theory, but it turned into crony politics where appointments were given as favors, sort of like cabinet positions are now. Thus, the push for elections in the early 1900s. Going back to that won't fix the current problems, and it would likely create more. Plus, it removes power from the people.

Edit: There were also problems with senate positions going unfilled due to conflicts within the legislature over appointments, not unlike what we're seeing with Trump's cabinet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#128
#128
Vol_Doc said:
Article I places the onus on the state legislatures to appoint senators. Sounds good, in theory, but it turned into crony politics where appointments were given as favors, sort of like cabinet positions are now. Thus, the push for elections in the early 1900s. Going back to that won't fix the current problems, and it would likely create more. Plus, it removes power from the people.

Edit: There were also problems with senate positions going unfilled due to conflicts within the legislature over appointments, not unlike what we're seeing with Trump's cabinet.
Click to expand...

I will counter that the direct election of Senators has caused more problems. It’s much easier to hold state legislators accountable for bad appointments than it is to remove an incumbent senator. The turnover rate for senators is almost nil since the 17th.
 
#129
#129
hog88 said:
I will counter that the direct election of Senators has caused more problems. It’s much easier to hold state legislators accountable for bad appointments than it is to remove an incumbent senator. The turnover rate for senators is almost nil since the 17th.
Click to expand...

Thus, term limits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#130
#130
Vol_Doc said:
Thus, term limits.
Click to expand...

Two terms for Senator or six terms for House. No more than 12 years combined. One as Senator, three as Representative, so on and so forth.

Twelve years total is plenty for them to line their pockets with "campaign donations" and free meals from lobbyists.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#131
#131
Grand Vol said:
Two terms for Senator or six terms for House. No more than 12 years combined. One as Senator, three as Representative, so on and so forth.

Twelve years total is plenty for them to line their pockets with "campaign donations" and free meals from lobbyists.
Click to expand...

9f2.gif
 
#132
#132
Grand Vol said:
Two terms for Senator or six terms for House. No more than 12 years combined. One as Senator, three as Representative, so on and so forth.

Twelve years total is plenty for them to line their pockets with "campaign donations" and free meals from lobbyists.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Plus, the chances of repealing a constitutional amendment are even more far fetched than term limits.
 
#136
#136
Grand Vol said:
Except the ones adding to the Constitution would be signing their own jobs away. Congress will never go for it.
Click to expand...

They'll never go for either, but it's fun to talk about. Here's the only repeal ever:

"The Twenty-first Amendment was ratified on December 5, 1933. It is unique among the 27 amendments of the U.S. Constitution for being the only one to repeal a prior amendment and to have been ratified by state ratifying conventions."
 
#137
#137
hog88 said:
I will counter that the direct election of Senators has caused more problems. It’s much easier to hold state legislators accountable for bad appointments than it is to remove an incumbent senator. The turnover rate for senators is almost nil since the 17th.
Click to expand...

Watch Texas this year. The reddest of states may well wind up with a blue senator.
 
#139
#139
SpaceCoastVol said:
Of course he is. I realize that.

But I really do wonder what exactly what is the purpose of campaign finance reform would be. How would it be enacted and enforced? The gazillionaires will have no problem circumventing any roadblocks put before them so what is the purpose? Kabuki? To make us 'feel' like we are 'doing something'? Yet real measures to prevent voter fraud are beyond consideration. (yes I know the libs don't want campaign finance reform either)

It's really mind boggling.
Click to expand...

In the beginning there were some pieces in place to tame DC. The federalists won, neutered the states, and subverted the whole concept of a union of states with a federal government that would work in concert to do a few things that worked better at a national level.

What might have been left to an electorate that could control congress was done in with the birth of strong political parties. It's a great plan - divide and conquer the electorate, and the infighting prevents incumbents from being swept away - real or supposed seniority and the power that goes with it subverts the will of the electorate divided by the flashy things - political parties and the subjugation of real rational thought.

Then there's the press - the great fourth estate - pawns of political philosophies and the parties - a complete waste of the freedom of the press. Goebbels would be proud to have a machine like our press.

So while we squabble among ourselves, DC continues to ascend to the absolute pinnacle of power and the corruption that goes with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#140
#140
hog88 said:
I will counter that the direct election of Senators has caused more problems. It’s much easier to hold state legislators accountable for bad appointments than it is to remove an incumbent senator. The turnover rate for senators is almost nil since the 17th.
Click to expand...

It could be, but politically divided state legislatures are more in tune with the political divide than they are with doing what's right. Political parties divide and conquer the will of those who might be inclined to do what is right regardless of political bent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#141
#141
AM64 said:
It could be, but politically divided state legislatures are more in tune with the political divide than they are with doing what's right. Political parties divide and conquer the will of those who might be inclined to do what is right regardless of political bent.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we see this all too often from both the major parties. Party politics are the norm. Free thought and action are the exception.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#142
#142
Vol_Doc said:
Unfortunately, we see this all too often from both the major parties. Party politics are the norm. Free thought and action are the exception.
Click to expand...

I get the impression that there really are too few individuals in the world. Most people are simply more comfortable in resorting to tribalism of one form or another.
 
#143
#143
AM64 said:
I get the impression that there really are too few individuals in the world. Most people are simply more comfortable in resorting to tribalism of one form or another.
Click to expand...

Because it's easier.
 
#144
#144
1972 Grad said:
If they do, which I doubt, wonder why?
Click to expand...

Several reasons. We have companies and people moving here in droves from the west coast, the northeast and the upper midwest. The companies and people move here for the cost of living and taxes. The dummies didn't like the high cost of living and the taxes where they were so they come here a vote the same way they did from whence they came. The larger cities, Houston, Austin, and Dallas are already blue and that is where the immigrants from the blue states are moving.

In 20 years Texas will be a blue state and that is sad.

The current polls for the Senate race show a 4% difference in the main candidates and that is within the error margin.
 
#145
#145
KentheOrange said:
Several reasons. We have companies and people moving here in droves from the west coast, the northeast and the upper midwest. The companies and people move here for the cost of living and taxes. The dummies didn't like the high cost of living and the taxes where they were so they come here a vote the same way they did from whence they came. The larger cities, Houston, Austin, and Dallas are already blue and that is where the immigrants from the blue states are moving.

In 20 years Texas will be a blue state and that is sad.

The current polls for the Senate race show a 4% difference in the main candidates and that is within the error margin.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping for the day that the rural areas get fed up with cities and quit sending them little stuff like food, power, gasoline, etc. Cities couldn't exist without rural support, and I don't think the reverse is true. It's truly a case of biting the hand that feeds you.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top