User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:18:36 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Scotus has twice ruled congress cannot change its eligibility requirements. As for the budget... when was it passed by the house? 23rd of last month. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:18:41 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fix't Quote HistoryQuoted: Originally Posted By @willi3d : A black screen? Fix't still black screen |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:18:43 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. These are not the preferred candidates - these people get in power & it is damn near impossible to get rid of them due to all the dark money they bring in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:20:04 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Republicans aren’t passing anything - their job is to block the democrat agenda and create gridlock. so far they are killing it gridlock wise |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:20:07 AM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:20:14 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Republicans aren’t passing anything - their job is to block the democrat agenda and create gridlock. so far they are killing it gridlock wise |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:23:13 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don’t forget the democrats still have the senate and White House. Republicans aren’t passing anything - their job is to block the democrat agenda and create gridlock. Doing a pretty good job so far. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:28:08 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I support aiding Ukraine and do not view them as scumbags. I have yet to hear more than a handful of people make any kind of remotely decent objection, much less an actual case for defending. Most just directly or indirectly repeat Russian propaganda or anti-war bullshit ultimately the result of older Soviet/Russian IO, or are spouting off isolationist or nationalist idiocy. The fiscal claims are absurd given how much we spend on other things. When we spend trillions on welfare the aid to Ukraine, the majority of which is material and not financial, seems trivial. If the Freedom Caucus were to make such demands I could certainly not respect them anymore. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Don't forget cutting off money to those fucking scumbag leeches in Ukraine. I support aiding Ukraine and do not view them as scumbags. I have yet to hear more than a handful of people make any kind of remotely decent objection, much less an actual case for defending. Most just directly or indirectly repeat Russian propaganda or anti-war bullshit ultimately the result of older Soviet/Russian IO, or are spouting off isolationist or nationalist idiocy. The fiscal claims are absurd given how much we spend on other things. When we spend trillions on welfare the aid to Ukraine, the majority of which is material and not financial, seems trivial. If the Freedom Caucus were to make such demands I could certainly not respect them anymore. This is a large part of why the government is such a clusterfuck Instead of trimming the fat and getting things in order we pile on. "Well we already spend sooooo much, whats another few billion?" How about trim the teeny tiny millions and billions and get shit under control |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:31:50 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Popular does not mean good or intelligent, but then I'm no populist or Democrat. Term limits are easily objectionable from a conservative perspective. The notion that one is a RINO for not supporting them is patently absurd. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If you aren’t for closing and securing the border, balancing the budget, and term limits then you are a RINO. These are the three most popular issues and have been for 30+ years. People get elected on them, go to DC, and get corrupted. Popular does not mean good or intelligent, but then I'm no populist or Democrat. Term limits are easily objectionable from a conservative perspective. The notion that one is a RINO for not supporting them is patently absurd. No, term limits are quite reasonable from a conservative perspective. It is one more arrow in the quiver to prevent the type of permanent political class that the Founders railed against. And yes, one is a RINO for not supporting them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:36:14 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I truly wonder how so many can be ignorant of the fact that legislative term limits have been tried many times in the U.S. to no discernible benefit at best. Expecting it to work this time around, with Congress, is just stupid where the position is not borne of ignorance. Term limits cause more harm than good in both theory and practice, and eesmith is just scratching the surface. Mandating a part-time legislature is something that would be of much more value, as would be reforms to how legislative chambers are apportioned. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Term limits are stupid because it just means that lobbyists, staffers, and the administrative state wind up with even more power than they do already. I truly wonder how so many can be ignorant of the fact that legislative term limits have been tried many times in the U.S. to no discernible benefit at best. Expecting it to work this time around, with Congress, is just stupid where the position is not borne of ignorance. Term limits cause more harm than good in both theory and practice, and eesmith is just scratching the surface. Mandating a part-time legislature is something that would be of much more value, as would be reforms to how legislative chambers are apportioned. This is entirely incorrect. Legislative term limits have NOT been tried many times in the US and what few have been have been beneficial. Further, in the case of Congress, term limits would have to come from a Constitutional Amendment similar to what was done to limit the number of terms of the President. Mandating a part-time legislature would also need to come from a Constitutional Amendment unless Congress chooses to self-limit (which they will never do). It's a good idea but it needs a significant level of support among the states. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:36:52 AM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:40:57 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Omar is a professional candidate, which is something that can be surprisingly lucrative. Basically it's where you run for federal office every cycle in a long-shot district, and focus on fundraising outside of the district from flyover types that don't know any better by claiming you have a shot to take out some notorious opposition politician. Charge hotels, food, miscellaneous bills, and set up consulting cutouts and family members to drain funds, and you can live quite well. George Santos is what happens on the occasion when one of these dogs accidentally catches the car and gets elected lol. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maxine Waters wants McCarthy as Speaker.
Read the rest of that tweet thread....it didn't go as expected for Omar lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:41:34 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:43:55 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: All that stuff should be behind closed doors. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Missed it. What did she say? video; https://justthenews.com/government/congress/boebert-says-trump-should-tell-mccarthy-withdraw-speaker-race Basically "Trump, her favorite president, has it backwards & needs to tell McCarthy to step aside." All that stuff should be behind closed doors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:45:36 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Budget's passed. They can keep this quality entertainment going until Sept 30th. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Its real simple. The GOP establishment moves to butt fuck many on the Freedom Caucus is blowing up in their face. Why should the FC play ball when you just tried to dick them down? I hope they hold out till a better candidate is put forth, or the government shuts down from lack of spending extension or budget or force the dems to vote with the Repub establishment revealing their true game. No mercy. Break the swamps back here. Budget's passed. They can keep this quality entertainment going until Sept 30th. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:48:24 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. No, he’s right. Missouri has a part time, term limited congress. The net result is that our unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything and have become the defacto ruling class. It sucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:49:17 AM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:49:32 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, he’s right. Missouri has a part time, term limited congress. The net result is that our unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything and have become the defacto ruling class. It sucks. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. No, he’s right. Missouri has a part time, term limited congress. The net result is that our unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything and have become the defacto ruling class. It sucks. Term limits have nothing to do with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:52:12 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Site the part that forbids it. I won't hold my breath either. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Bullshit there is nothing the constitution that prohibits term limits. States lack the ability to but the USSC has not said congress cannot impose limits on itself outside of an amendment. Okay, cite the part of the Constitution that allows their imposition for members of Congress. I won't hold my breath waiting. Site the part that forbids it. I won't hold my breath either. Institutions like Congress created by the Constitution are defined by it. If it's not part of how they are constituted in the dclocument, then it doesn't exist. Also, any power not granted is not held. Furthermore, you are making an assertion of existence. Therefore, the onus is on you to prove your claim. In order for Congress to have the power to mandate term limits for themselves it must be spelled out in the document. This is a basic legal principle underlying how the laws were meant to be understood and how the Founders understood the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:55:20 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, term limits are quite reasonable from a conservative perspective. It is one more arrow in the quiver to prevent the type of permanent political class that the Founders railed against. And yes, one is a RINO for not supporting them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: If you aren't for closing and securing the border, balancing the budget, and term limits then you are a RINO. These are the three most popular issues and have been for 30+ years. People get elected on them, go to DC, and get corrupted. Popular does not mean good or intelligent, but then I'm no populist or Democrat. Term limits are easily objectionable from a conservative perspective. The notion that one is a RINO for not supporting them is patently absurd. No, term limits are quite reasonable from a conservative perspective. It is one more arrow in the quiver to prevent the type of permanent political class that the Founders railed against. And yes, one is a RINO for not supporting them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:55:26 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Term limits have nothing to do with that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. No, he’s right. Missouri has a part time, term limited congress. The net result is that our unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything and have become the defacto ruling class. It sucks. Term limits have nothing to do with that. Yeah it does. The only people around long enough to do anything are the bureaucrats. They know the in and outs of the system better than anyone. They’re the one the elected officials have to rely on for everything. But what do I know. I just spent yesterday talking to one of my best friends who’s about to term limit out of the house about this very subject. I’m sure you know better than he does, random man on the internet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:57:59 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set.  They haven't done shit on the state level to end professional politicians from staying in power for decades. They just migrate from office to office like musical chairs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 12:59:16 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, he's right. Missouri has a part time, term limited congress. The net result is that our unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything and have become the defacto ruling class. It sucks. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. No, he's right. Missouri has a part time, term limited congress. The net result is that our unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything and have become the defacto ruling class. It sucks. FL's legislature meets for sixty days a year. They hardly get anything done. It is a race before session to stroke lawmakers' egos to get them to actually support something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:00:57 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You keep saying that they cause more harm than good without qualifying your statement. HOW do they hurt? Politicians for life were never intended and its bullshit to act like its a good thing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Term limits are stupid because it just means that lobbyists, staffers, and the administrative state wind up with even more power than they do already. I truly wonder how so many can be ignorant of the fact that legislative term limits have been tried many times in the U.S. to no discernible benefit at best. Expecting it to work this time around, with Congress, is just stupid where the position is not borne of ignorance. Term limits cause more harm than good in both theory and practice, and eesmith is just scratching the surface. Mandating a part-time legislature is something that would be of much more value, as would be reforms to how legislative chambers are apportioned. You keep saying that they cause more harm than good without qualifying your statement. HOW do they hurt? Politicians for life were never intended and its bullshit to act like its a good thing. Politicians for life predate the Founding. Most of the Founders spent much of their adult lives in office. It's neither a good or bad thing; it is neutral. I'm stuck typing on a stupid smartphone which is a PITA as I'm on a plane and it is a lot to spell put, but I've done it many times before and it gets tiring typing it all out time and time again because people choose to remain ignorant. Term limits do not end corruption and can provide new incentives for it since politicians are guaranteed departure from the office in question. Term limits prevent the acquisition of experience which is important to crafting sound legislation and navigating the processes involved in such bodies, which results in the transfer of power to unelected staggers who are able to maintain continuity as well as to the administrative state. Politicians for life persist, they just bounce from office to office. Lame ducks are a constant problem which results in office holders who no longer feel beholden to their constituents and act accordingly. Good legislators are thrown out with the bad and the probability of being replaced by someone of lower quality tends to be higher than the opposite (throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak). Constituencies are also denied their choice in representatives. Term limits have been tried many times in this country and they have never fulfilled any of their promises while creating adverse results much of the time. It is foolish to think that applying this to Congress will have a different result. There's more, but that gives you something to ponder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:06:50 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. Term limits wouldn’t fix much. Arguments can be made they would make things worse. Repealing the 17th amendment and a repeal of Citizens United are what you seek. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:11:18 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, he’s right. Missouri has a part time, term limited congress. The net result is that our unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything and have become the defacto ruling class. It sucks. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. No, he’s right. Missouri has a part time, term limited congress. The net result is that our unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything and have become the defacto ruling class. It sucks. If your unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything, your legislature has failed at legislating. Generally speaking, term limited politicians are better at legislating than career politicians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:11:38 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Term limits wouldn't fix much. Arguments can be made they would make things worse. Repealing the 17th amendment and a repeal of Citizens United are what you seek. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:12:09 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If your unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything, your legislature has failed at legislating. Generally speaking, term limited politicians are better at legislating than career politicians. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. No, he's right. Missouri has a part time, term limited congress. The net result is that our unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything and have become the defacto ruling class. It sucks. If your unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything, your legislature has failed at legislating. Generally speaking, term limited politicians are better at legislating than career politicians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:12:43 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A number of states have term limits. They're useless. Professional politicians simply move from one office t9 another. A State Representative runs for State Senate when term limited. When done with that they run for State Agricultural Commissioner or County Tax Office or Governor or Judge, etc... they just migrate from office to office like it is musical chairs. All staying in the same retirement pension system, building up time, and making more and more money off the tax payers. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If you aren't for closing and securing the border, balancing the budget, and term limits then you are a RINO. These are the three most popular issues and have been for 30+ years. People get elected on them, go to DC, and get corrupted. Popular does not mean good or intelligent, but then I'm no populist or Democrat. Term limits are easily objectionable from a conservative perspective. The notion that one is a RINO for not supporting them is patently absurd. No, term limits are quite reasonable from a conservative perspective. It is one more arrow in the quiver to prevent the type of permanent political class that the Founders railed against. And yes, one is a RINO for not supporting them. No, they're not useless. A politician that has to change jobs every so often is precisely what term limits do. And, they are quite effective at it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:13:56 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/FT_16.11.30_termLimits_map_newsletter.png They haven't done shit on the state level to end professional politicians from staying in power for decades. They just migrate from office to office like musical chairs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. They haven't done shit on the state level to end professional politicians from staying in power for decades. They just migrate from office to office like musical chairs. Yes, they have since they can't stay in one position for decades. Migrating gets them out of office. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:18:12 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Politicians for life predate the Founding. Most of the Founders spent much of their adult lives in office. It's neither a good or bad thing; it is neutral. I'm stuck typing on a stupid smartphone which is a PITA as I'm on a plane and it is a lot to spell put, but I've done it many times before and it gets tiring typing it all out time and time again because people choose to remain ignorant. Term limits do not end corruption and can provide new incentives for it since politicians are guaranteed departure from the office in question. Term limits prevent the acquisition of experience which is important to crafting sound legislation and navigating the processes involved in such bodies, which results in the transfer of power to unelected staggers who are able to maintain continuity as well as to the administrative state. Politicians for life persist, they just bounce from office to office. Lame ducks are a constant problem which results in office holders who no longer feel beholden to their constituents and act accordingly. Good legislators are thrown out with the bad and the probability of being replaced by someone of lower quality tends to be higher than the opposite (throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak). Constituencies are also denied their choice in representatives. Term limits have been tried many times in this country and they have never fulfilled any of their promises while creating adverse results much of the time. It is foolish to think that applying this to Congress will have a different result. There's more, but that gives you something to ponder. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Term limits are stupid because it just means that lobbyists, staffers, and the administrative state wind up with even more power than they do already. I truly wonder how so many can be ignorant of the fact that legislative term limits have been tried many times in the U.S. to no discernible benefit at best. Expecting it to work this time around, with Congress, is just stupid where the position is not borne of ignorance. Term limits cause more harm than good in both theory and practice, and eesmith is just scratching the surface. Mandating a part-time legislature is something that would be of much more value, as would be reforms to how legislative chambers are apportioned. You keep saying that they cause more harm than good without qualifying your statement. HOW do they hurt? Politicians for life were never intended and its bullshit to act like its a good thing. Politicians for life predate the Founding. Most of the Founders spent much of their adult lives in office. It's neither a good or bad thing; it is neutral. I'm stuck typing on a stupid smartphone which is a PITA as I'm on a plane and it is a lot to spell put, but I've done it many times before and it gets tiring typing it all out time and time again because people choose to remain ignorant. Term limits do not end corruption and can provide new incentives for it since politicians are guaranteed departure from the office in question. Term limits prevent the acquisition of experience which is important to crafting sound legislation and navigating the processes involved in such bodies, which results in the transfer of power to unelected staggers who are able to maintain continuity as well as to the administrative state. Politicians for life persist, they just bounce from office to office. Lame ducks are a constant problem which results in office holders who no longer feel beholden to their constituents and act accordingly. Good legislators are thrown out with the bad and the probability of being replaced by someone of lower quality tends to be higher than the opposite (throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak). Constituencies are also denied their choice in representatives. Term limits have been tried many times in this country and they have never fulfilled any of their promises while creating adverse results much of the time. It is foolish to think that applying this to Congress will have a different result. There's more, but that gives you something to ponder. Politicians for life were an anathema in the time of our founding. Most of the Founders spent much of their adult lives in their profession, not in office. Your knowledge of history is lacking. No, the "acquisition of experience" as you call it is exactly the opposite of what we as a country need and is why we are so screwed up right now. What we have now is a permanent political class that is thoroughly corrupt. That's the "experience" that is gained by no term limits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:19:49 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, no they're not. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. No, he's right. Missouri has a part time, term limited congress. The net result is that our unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything and have become the defacto ruling class. It sucks. If your unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything, your legislature has failed at legislating. Generally speaking, term limited politicians are better at legislating than career politicians. Yes, yes they are. Most certainly. It's because of the perverse incentives having power and money create. Eliminate that as a career goal, a lot of the corruption goes with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:26:06 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, they're not useless. A politician that has to change jobs every so often is precisely what term limits do. And, they are quite effective at it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If you aren't for closing and securing the border, balancing the budget, and term limits then you are a RINO. These are the three most popular issues and have been for 30+ years. People get elected on them, go to DC, and get corrupted. Popular does not mean good or intelligent, but then I'm no populist or Democrat. Term limits are easily objectionable from a conservative perspective. The notion that one is a RINO for not supporting them is patently absurd. No, term limits are quite reasonable from a conservative perspective. It is one more arrow in the quiver to prevent the type of permanent political class that the Founders railed against. And yes, one is a RINO for not supporting them. No, they're not useless. A politician that has to change jobs every so often is precisely what term limits do. And, they are quite effective at it.  Attached FileWhat part of they stay in power don't you understand? They aren't out of a job. They just move from job to job, making a mess of things. They are around for decades and they cultivate their successors for their old jobs, thus keeping the grift and corruption going. It is like the Sith. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:26:59 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, they have since they can't stay in one position for decades. Migrating gets them out of office. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. They haven't done shit on the state level to end professional politicians from staying in power for decades. They just migrate from office to office like musical chairs. Yes, they have since they can't stay in one position for decades. Migrating gets them out of office. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:28:12 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They're still in positions of power, crafting laws and policies. They aren't out of office. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. They haven't done shit on the state level to end professional politicians from staying in power for decades. They just migrate from office to office like musical chairs. Yes, they have since they can't stay in one position for decades. Migrating gets them out of office. By definition, they are out of office. That limits the damage they can do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:28:39 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes, yes they are. Most certainly. It's because of the perverse incentives having power and money create. Eliminate that as a career goal, a lot of the corruption goes with it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. No, he's right. Missouri has a part time, term limited congress. The net result is that our unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything and have become the defacto ruling class. It sucks. If your unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything, your legislature has failed at legislating. Generally speaking, term limited politicians are better at legislating than career politicians. Yes, yes they are. Most certainly. It's because of the perverse incentives having power and money create. Eliminate that as a career goal, a lot of the corruption goes with it. Are you Icelandic? Their career goals are to stay in power and that means climbing the ranks of office. Term limits don't stop that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:29:02 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: so far they are killing it gridlock wise Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Republicans aren’t passing anything - their job is to block the democrat agenda and create gridlock. so far they are killing it gridlock wise That is why I hope the current situation continues until January of 2025. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:31:12 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: By definition, they are out of office. That limits the damage they can do. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. They haven't done shit on the state level to end professional politicians from staying in power for decades. They just migrate from office to office like musical chairs. Yes, they have since they can't stay in one position for decades. Migrating gets them out of office. By definition, they are out of office. That limits the damage they can do. You're dense.  Attached FileFL has term limits, this anti-gun asshole has been in office for over a decade now. Term limits aren't going to stop him from being an anti-gun asshole. He now runs the FL CCW permit system. He's the asshole that wrote FL's Red Flag Laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:42:12 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: By definition, they are out of office. That limits the damage they can do. Replaced by a clone beholden only to those who paid for their campaign, free from any accountability to the voters, because they can’t stand for re-election anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:46:33 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah it does. The only people around long enough to do anything are the bureaucrats. They know the in and outs of the system better than anyone. They’re the one the elected officials have to rely on for everything. But what do I know. I just spent yesterday talking to one of my best friends who’s about to term limit out of the house about this very subject. I’m sure you know better than he does, random man on the internet. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. No, he’s right. Missouri has a part time, term limited congress. The net result is that our unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything and have become the defacto ruling class. It sucks. Term limits have nothing to do with that. Yeah it does. The only people around long enough to do anything are the bureaucrats. They know the in and outs of the system better than anyone. They’re the one the elected officials have to rely on for everything. But what do I know. I just spent yesterday talking to one of my best friends who’s about to term limit out of the house about this very subject. I’m sure you know better than he does, random man on the internet. The size and amount of power those bureaucrats have is the problem. Not the lack of term limits. Peace be unto you-random sarcastic man on the internet |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:50:51 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Politicians for life predate the Founding. Most of the Founders spent much of their adult lives in office. It's neither a good or bad thing; it is neutral. I'm stuck typing on a stupid smartphone which is a PITA as I'm on a plane and it is a lot to spell put, but I've done it many times before and it gets tiring typing it all out time and time again because people choose to remain ignorant. Term limits do not end corruption and can provide new incentives for it since politicians are guaranteed departure from the office in question. Term limits prevent the acquisition of experience which is important to crafting sound legislation and navigating the processes involved in such bodies, which results in the transfer of power to unelected staggers who are able to maintain continuity as well as to the administrative state. Politicians for life persist, they just bounce from office to office. Lame ducks are a constant problem which results in office holders who no longer feel beholden to their constituents and act accordingly. Good legislators are thrown out with the bad and the probability of being replaced by someone of lower quality tends to be higher than the opposite (throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak). Constituencies are also denied their choice in representatives. Term limits have been tried many times in this country and they have never fulfilled any of their promises while creating adverse results much of the time. It is foolish to think that applying this to Congress will have a different result. There's more, but that gives you something to ponder. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Term limits are stupid because it just means that lobbyists, staffers, and the administrative state wind up with even more power than they do already. I truly wonder how so many can be ignorant of the fact that legislative term limits have been tried many times in the U.S. to no discernible benefit at best. Expecting it to work this time around, with Congress, is just stupid where the position is not borne of ignorance. Term limits cause more harm than good in both theory and practice, and eesmith is just scratching the surface. Mandating a part-time legislature is something that would be of much more value, as would be reforms to how legislative chambers are apportioned. You keep saying that they cause more harm than good without qualifying your statement. HOW do they hurt? Politicians for life were never intended and its bullshit to act like its a good thing. Politicians for life predate the Founding. Most of the Founders spent much of their adult lives in office. It's neither a good or bad thing; it is neutral. I'm stuck typing on a stupid smartphone which is a PITA as I'm on a plane and it is a lot to spell put, but I've done it many times before and it gets tiring typing it all out time and time again because people choose to remain ignorant. Term limits do not end corruption and can provide new incentives for it since politicians are guaranteed departure from the office in question. Term limits prevent the acquisition of experience which is important to crafting sound legislation and navigating the processes involved in such bodies, which results in the transfer of power to unelected staggers who are able to maintain continuity as well as to the administrative state. Politicians for life persist, they just bounce from office to office. Lame ducks are a constant problem which results in office holders who no longer feel beholden to their constituents and act accordingly. Good legislators are thrown out with the bad and the probability of being replaced by someone of lower quality tends to be higher than the opposite (throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak). Constituencies are also denied their choice in representatives. Term limits have been tried many times in this country and they have never fulfilled any of their promises while creating adverse results much of the time. It is foolish to think that applying this to Congress will have a different result. There's more, but that gives you something to ponder. You'd have a ruling class. A permanent ruling elite that have no reason to improve the situation other than to retain their power. But what we have is an elite who have no need to fix, improve or repair the situation because they retain their power If we had citizen politicians who were going to return to make a living among their communities they would be much less apt to make laws that destroy those communities. I am not persuaded by your argument but I do thank you for your post and sharing your perspective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:54:41 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Replaced by a clone beholden only to those who paid for their campaign, free from any accountability to the voters, because they can't stand for re-election anyway. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: By definition, they are out of office. That limits the damage they can do. Replaced by a clone beholden only to those who paid for their campaign, free from any accountability to the voters, because they can't stand for re-election anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:56:57 AM EDT
[#43]
It is amazing to me how the lines are staying consistent One side- Pro Ukraine Pro must vote republican Pro McCarthy Anti Term Limit MIC Uber Alles VS Small Government Anti War Term Limit Balanced Budget Pro Freedom Anti Republican Uber Alles Who are the real conservatives of GD? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:57:34 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The size and amount of power those bureaucrats have is the problem. Not the lack of term limits. Peace be unto you-random sarcastic man on the internet Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. No, he’s right. Missouri has a part time, term limited congress. The net result is that our unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything and have become the defacto ruling class. It sucks. Term limits have nothing to do with that. Yeah it does. The only people around long enough to do anything are the bureaucrats. They know the in and outs of the system better than anyone. They’re the one the elected officials have to rely on for everything. But what do I know. I just spent yesterday talking to one of my best friends who’s about to term limit out of the house about this very subject. I’m sure you know better than he does, random man on the internet. The size and amount of power those bureaucrats have is the problem. Not the lack of term limits. Peace be unto you-random sarcastic man on the internet They gain that power through staying power. By the time an elected official has his feet on the ground, they’re on the way out. The question you have to answer is: would you rather have lifer politicians you can vote out, or lifer bureaucrats you can’t fire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 1:57:45 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You'd have a ruling class. A permanent ruling elite that have no reason to improve the situation other than to retain their power. But what we have is an elite who have no need to fix, improve or repair the situation because they retain their power If we had citizen politicians who were going to return to make a living among their communities they would be much less apt to make laws that destroy those communities. I am not persuaded by your argument but I do thank you for your post and sharing your perspective. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Term limits are stupid because it just means that lobbyists, staffers, and the administrative state wind up with even more power than they do already. I truly wonder how so many can be ignorant of the fact that legislative term limits have been tried many times in the U.S. to no discernible benefit at best. Expecting it to work this time around, with Congress, is just stupid where the position is not borne of ignorance. Term limits cause more harm than good in both theory and practice, and eesmith is just scratching the surface. Mandating a part-time legislature is something that would be of much more value, as would be reforms to how legislative chambers are apportioned. You keep saying that they cause more harm than good without qualifying your statement. HOW do they hurt? Politicians for life were never intended and its bullshit to act like its a good thing. Politicians for life predate the Founding. Most of the Founders spent much of their adult lives in office. It's neither a good or bad thing; it is neutral. I'm stuck typing on a stupid smartphone which is a PITA as I'm on a plane and it is a lot to spell put, but I've done it many times before and it gets tiring typing it all out time and time again because people choose to remain ignorant. Term limits do not end corruption and can provide new incentives for it since politicians are guaranteed departure from the office in question. Term limits prevent the acquisition of experience which is important to crafting sound legislation and navigating the processes involved in such bodies, which results in the transfer of power to unelected staggers who are able to maintain continuity as well as to the administrative state. Politicians for life persist, they just bounce from office to office. Lame ducks are a constant problem which results in office holders who no longer feel beholden to their constituents and act accordingly. Good legislators are thrown out with the bad and the probability of being replaced by someone of lower quality tends to be higher than the opposite (throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak). Constituencies are also denied their choice in representatives. Term limits have been tried many times in this country and they have never fulfilled any of their promises while creating adverse results much of the time. It is foolish to think that applying this to Congress will have a different result. There's more, but that gives you something to ponder. You'd have a ruling class. A permanent ruling elite that have no reason to improve the situation other than to retain their power. But what we have is an elite who have no need to fix, improve or repair the situation because they retain their power If we had citizen politicians who were going to return to make a living among their communities they would be much less apt to make laws that destroy those communities. I am not persuaded by your argument but I do thank you for your post and sharing your perspective. FL has Term Limits, our Legislature is in session for 60 days. Lawmakers spend hugest amounts of money for term limited races, for offices that pay $30k a year, why? Because of power. They have their businesses outside of office. They mostly lawyers, bankers, etc.... folks who use their political positions to grow their private businesses and use their private businesses to grow their political careers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:01:14 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FL has Term Limits, our Legislature is in session for 60 days. Lawmakers spend hugest amounts of money for term limited races, for offices that pay $30k a year, why? Because of power. They have their businesses outside of office. They mostly lawyers, bankers, etc.... folks who use their political positions to grow their private businesses and use their private businesses to grow their political careers. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Term limits are stupid because it just means that lobbyists, staffers, and the administrative state wind up with even more power than they do already. I truly wonder how so many can be ignorant of the fact that legislative term limits have been tried many times in the U.S. to no discernible benefit at best. Expecting it to work this time around, with Congress, is just stupid where the position is not borne of ignorance. Term limits cause more harm than good in both theory and practice, and eesmith is just scratching the surface. Mandating a part-time legislature is something that would be of much more value, as would be reforms to how legislative chambers are apportioned. You keep saying that they cause more harm than good without qualifying your statement. HOW do they hurt? Politicians for life were never intended and its bullshit to act like its a good thing. Politicians for life predate the Founding. Most of the Founders spent much of their adult lives in office. It's neither a good or bad thing; it is neutral. I'm stuck typing on a stupid smartphone which is a PITA as I'm on a plane and it is a lot to spell put, but I've done it many times before and it gets tiring typing it all out time and time again because people choose to remain ignorant. Term limits do not end corruption and can provide new incentives for it since politicians are guaranteed departure from the office in question. Term limits prevent the acquisition of experience which is important to crafting sound legislation and navigating the processes involved in such bodies, which results in the transfer of power to unelected staggers who are able to maintain continuity as well as to the administrative state. Politicians for life persist, they just bounce from office to office. Lame ducks are a constant problem which results in office holders who no longer feel beholden to their constituents and act accordingly. Good legislators are thrown out with the bad and the probability of being replaced by someone of lower quality tends to be higher than the opposite (throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak). Constituencies are also denied their choice in representatives. Term limits have been tried many times in this country and they have never fulfilled any of their promises while creating adverse results much of the time. It is foolish to think that applying this to Congress will have a different result. There's more, but that gives you something to ponder. You'd have a ruling class. A permanent ruling elite that have no reason to improve the situation other than to retain their power. But what we have is an elite who have no need to fix, improve or repair the situation because they retain their power If we had citizen politicians who were going to return to make a living among their communities they would be much less apt to make laws that destroy those communities. I am not persuaded by your argument but I do thank you for your post and sharing your perspective. FL has Term Limits, our Legislature is in session for 60 days. Lawmakers spend hugest amounts of money for term limited races, for offices that pay $30k a year, why? Because of power. They have their businesses outside of office. They mostly lawyers, bankers, etc.... folks who use their political positions to grow their private businesses and use their private businesses to grow their political careers. So electing the same ass hole that does that to you over and over fixes that vs alot of ass holes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:01:31 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is amazing to me how the lines are staying consistent One side- Pro Ukraine Pro must vote republican Pro McCarthy Anti Term Limit MIC Uber Alles VS Small Government Anti War Term Limit Balanced Budget Pro Freedom Anti Republican Uber Alles Who are the real conservatives of GD? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:02:47 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They gain that power through staying power. By the time an elected official has his feet on the ground, they're on the way out. The question you have to answer is: would you rather have lifer politicians you can vote out, or lifer bureaucrats you can't fire. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. No, he's right. Missouri has a part time, term limited congress. The net result is that our unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything and have become the defacto ruling class. It sucks. Term limits have nothing to do with that. Yeah it does. The only people around long enough to do anything are the bureaucrats. They know the in and outs of the system better than anyone. They're the one the elected officials have to rely on for everything. But what do I know. I just spent yesterday talking to one of my best friends who's about to term limit out of the house about this very subject. I'm sure you know better than he does, random man on the internet. The size and amount of power those bureaucrats have is the problem. Not the lack of term limits. Peace be unto you-random sarcastic man on the internet They gain that power through staying power. By the time an elected official has his feet on the ground, they're on the way out. The question you have to answer is: would you rather have lifer politicians you can vote out, or lifer bureaucrats you can't fire. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:03:25 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They gain that power through staying power. By the time an elected official has his feet on the ground, they’re on the way out. The question you have to answer is: would you rather have lifer politicians you can vote out, or lifer bureaucrats you can’t fire. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:
Term limits are stupid AF, unconservative, and unconstitutional. Tall about a ridiculous demand. Any Speaker candidate would be right to reject it. A balanced budget is unrealistic without greater Republican control over Congress and the Presidency. Stick to reducing the Speaker's power. Those were the better and more realistic demands. Term limits are unconstitutional how? The president has Term Limits. They are unconservative how? Eliminating professional politicians is as conservative as it gets Term limits deny people their preferred representatives and increase the power of the unelected without actually fixing anything or even eliminating career politicians (it should be noted that many of the Founders were career politicians). The notion of their efficacy requires a denial of reality and sound theory which itself is deeply unconservative behavior. Congressional term limits are unconstitutional unless the Constitution is amended to say otherwise. Again, this is entirely incorrect. Term limits are one more tool in the toolbox to prevent a permanent political class from exacting tyranny on the citizenry. It would, by definition, eliminate career politicians. Also, few of the Founders were career politicians, many were learned men of means, scientists, authors, business people, etc. In those days, a person would have been considered a failure to be a career politician. Term limits, as a concept, are not unConstitutional since there already is a term-limit for the Presidency. Another Constitutional amendment would be required but the precedent has already been set. No, he’s right. Missouri has a part time, term limited congress. The net result is that our unelected bureaucrats hold the keys to everything and have become the defacto ruling class. It sucks. Term limits have nothing to do with that. Yeah it does. The only people around long enough to do anything are the bureaucrats. They know the in and outs of the system better than anyone. They’re the one the elected officials have to rely on for everything. But what do I know. I just spent yesterday talking to one of my best friends who’s about to term limit out of the house about this very subject. I’m sure you know better than he does, random man on the internet. The size and amount of power those bureaucrats have is the problem. Not the lack of term limits. Peace be unto you-random sarcastic man on the internet They gain that power through staying power. By the time an elected official has his feet on the ground, they’re on the way out. The question you have to answer is: would you rather have lifer politicians you can vote out, or lifer bureaucrats you can’t fire. They gain that power through weak legislation and weak county and city governments telling them to eat shit and die. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:07:13 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is amazing to me how the lines are staying consistent One side- Pro Ukraine Pro must vote republican Pro McCarthy Anti Term Limit MIC Uber Alles VS Small Government Anti War Term Limit Balanced Budget Pro Freedom Anti Republican Uber Alles Who are the real conservatives of GD? Most people *think* they are conservative but actually aren't. GD is no different. They are convinced they are right and you are wrong...no changing their minds. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File