User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:08:29 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So electing the same ass hole that does that to you over and over fixes that vs alot of ass holes? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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? Explain how term limits stop career politicians in places that already have term limits? We have it in FL, we still have people in power for over a decade at a time, just jumping from office to office, all while cultivating their replacements to keep the status quo going. And taking he place of their mentors who cultivated them. The Founders entrusted us, the people, to ultimately vet our elected officials and fire them if need be. All term limits do is place a false sense of security on the electorate. Thus, the people fail in their role and never hold their officials accountable since they think, "oh, it won't be so bad, so & so will be out in a few years anyways during to term limits". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:10:20 AM EDT
[#2]
Term limits are not good enough. Place their personal fortunes on line with the economy. Their accounts are seized when the economy becomes bad. Actually I am just down with heads on sticks....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:11:58 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. 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. 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. Term limits absolutely stop that. That's the entire point of them. If they can't stay in a position very long, there is no climbing the ranks. There is no "I've been here for 40 years and am now the ranking member" of a committee. There is no time to set up a perpetual grift. All the things you're grousing about are the very things term limits prevent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:17:42 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Term limits absolutely stop that. That's the entire point of them. If they can't stay in a position very long, there is no climbing the ranks. There is no "I've been here for 40 years and am now the ranking member" of a committee. There is no time to set up a perpetual grift. All the things you're grousing about are the very things term limits prevent. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. 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. Term limits absolutely stop that. That's the entire point of them. If they can't stay in a position very long, there is no climbing the ranks. There is no "I've been here for 40 years and am now the ranking member" of a committee. There is no time to set up a perpetual grift. All the things you're grousing about are the very things term limits prevent. LOL, no, it doesn't stop that. They still setup the perpetual grift. Look at the FL and CA legislature for example, both of term limits, both have serious issues. If term limits stopped it. Then Wilton Simpson wouldn't have been the Senate President of FL.  Attached FileLook at the pattern, look who he succeeded and preceded. They're all the same people with the same positions. They do climb the ranks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:18:38 AM EDT
[#5]
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. Generally speaking, term limits are for 2 terms. Some states limit their Governor to 3 terms in their lifetime. However, Virginia doesn't allow a Governor to have consecutive terms so it's usually a one-and-done (though technically they can serve another term at some later point but limited to 2). So, if they wanted to stay in the position, they would have to run for re-election, same as the President. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:24:32 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL, no, it doesn't stop that. They still setup the perpetual grift. Look at the FL and CA legislature for example, both of term limits, both have serious issues. If term limits stopped it. Then Wilton Simpson wouldn't have been the Senate President of FL. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/122381/Screenshot_20230105_002925_jpg-2661025.JPG Look at the pattern, look who he succeeded and preceded. They're all the same people with the same positions. They do climb the ranks. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. 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. Term limits absolutely stop that. That's the entire point of them. If they can't stay in a position very long, there is no climbing the ranks. There is no "I've been here for 40 years and am now the ranking member" of a committee. There is no time to set up a perpetual grift. All the things you're grousing about are the very things term limits prevent. LOL, no, it doesn't stop that. They still setup the perpetual grift. Look at the FL and CA legislature for example, both of term limits, both have serious issues. If term limits stopped it. Then Wilton Simpson wouldn't have been the Senate President of FL. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/122381/Screenshot_20230105_002925_jpg-2661025.JPG Look at the pattern, look who he succeeded and preceded. They're all the same people with the same positions. They do climb the ranks. Look at the pattern yourself. They are all different positions. And, each of those positions is unique. The jobs are different because their functions are different. Booting a politician out of a position due to term limits, by definition, limits the amount of damage they can do in that position. This isn't a hard concept to grasp yet here we are. (This is all just filler until we get more news on the actual point of the thread.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:26:52 AM EDT
[#7]
The best thing that could happen is that no Speaker is chosen. Not a single bit of conservative legislation will get through the Senate.
The only stuff will be compromise bi-partisan shit that screws the USA. With the House unable to seat new members or vote, then none of that legislation will pass. Eventually the media will move on. People will get used to the government doing nothing and more will see that no legislation is better than bad legislation. And hopefully the federal government shuts down. Then people will eventually get used to Big Daddy Gov not being there. I know people that lose their minds every time the federal government has shut down. They act like OMFG there is no government watching over us... we're doomed! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:29:55 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Look at the pattern yourself. They are all different positions. And, each of those positions is unique. The jobs are different because their functions are different. Booting a politician out of a position due to term limits, by definition, limits the amount of damage they can do in that position. This isn't a hard concept to grasp yet here we are. (This is all just filler until we get more news on the actual point of the thread.) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. 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. Term limits absolutely stop that. That's the entire point of them. If they can't stay in a position very long, there is no climbing the ranks. There is no "I've been here for 40 years and am now the ranking member" of a committee. There is no time to set up a perpetual grift. All the things you're grousing about are the very things term limits prevent. LOL, no, it doesn't stop that. They still setup the perpetual grift. Look at the FL and CA legislature for example, both of term limits, both have serious issues. If term limits stopped it. Then Wilton Simpson wouldn't have been the Senate President of FL. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/122381/Screenshot_20230105_002925_jpg-2661025.JPG Look at the pattern, look who he succeeded and preceded. They're all the same people with the same positions. They do climb the ranks. Look at the pattern yourself. They are all different positions. And, each of those positions is unique. The jobs are different because their functions are different. Booting a politician out of a position due to term limits, by definition, limits the amount of damage they can do in that position. This isn't a hard concept to grasp yet here we are. (This is all just filler until we get more news on the actual point of the thread.) So, you can't answer why and how people climb the ranks under term limits. Senate President and Majority Leader isn't a separate elected position. They're all held by members of the Senate. Galvano, Simpson, and Passidomo are all State Senators. Each one groomed their successor to succeed them and keep thr grifting ongoing. Each one so far has pushed gun control and followed the previous one's outline for gun control and they voted for the same Parkland Gun Control bill in 2018. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:35:33 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, you can't answer why and how people climb the ranks under term limits. Senate President and Majority Leader isn't a separate elected position. They're all held by members of the Senate. Galvano, Simpson, and Passidomo are all State Senators. Each one groomed their successor to succeed them and keep thr grifting ongoing. Each one so far has pushed gun control and followed the previous one's outline for gun control and they voted for the same Parkland Gun Control bill in 2018. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. 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. Term limits absolutely stop that. That's the entire point of them. If they can't stay in a position very long, there is no climbing the ranks. There is no "I've been here for 40 years and am now the ranking member" of a committee. There is no time to set up a perpetual grift. All the things you're grousing about are the very things term limits prevent. LOL, no, it doesn't stop that. They still setup the perpetual grift. Look at the FL and CA legislature for example, both of term limits, both have serious issues. If term limits stopped it. Then Wilton Simpson wouldn't have been the Senate President of FL. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/122381/Screenshot_20230105_002925_jpg-2661025.JPG Look at the pattern, look who he succeeded and preceded. They're all the same people with the same positions. They do climb the ranks. Look at the pattern yourself. They are all different positions. And, each of those positions is unique. The jobs are different because their functions are different. Booting a politician out of a position due to term limits, by definition, limits the amount of damage they can do in that position. This isn't a hard concept to grasp yet here we are. (This is all just filler until we get more news on the actual point of the thread.) So, you can't answer why and how people climb the ranks under term limits. Senate President and Majority Leader isn't a separate elected position. They're all held by members of the Senate. Galvano, Simpson, and Passidomo are all State Senators. Each one groomed their successor to succeed them and keep thr grifting ongoing. Each one so far has pushed gun control and followed the previous one's outline for gun control and they voted for the same Parkland Gun Control bill in 2018. So, you say that Senate President isn't a separate elected position. Then does that mean they have to be elected in their district? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:36:52 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 23rd of last month. False, the last budget passed by Congress: “The last time Congress completed all bills on time was 20 years ago, in 1996. Instead of a functioning appropriations process, Congress has resorted to massive omnibus appropriations bills and continuing resolutions that carry over spending from the previous year.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:45:42 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, you say that Senate President isn't a separate elected position. Then does that mean they have to be elected in their district? Quote HistoryQuoted: So, you say that Senate President isn't a separate elected position. Then does that mean they have to be elected in their district? Again, term limits don't stop corruption. Wilton Simpson became the Senate President because it was "his turn" since he was the "senior lawmaker" who was previously the Majority Leader. Just like McCarthy. Same with Galvano and Passidomo. In another thread, you said: Ego is a big problem with career politicians, especially ones that think they are "entitled" to the job. This fiasco is a "I'm in charge and you're not" kind of idiocy. He needs to get over himself if he wants to be Speaker. If he can't, then he'll never be Speaker. Guess what, term limits doesn't stop that. It accelerates it. Instead of 40 years, it is 8 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:46:55 AM EDT
[#12]
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? “Conservative” doesn’t really mean anymore much these days, as a term. People on the right apply the term to things they like. If they don’t like it, it’s communism.  I’ve got 2 on the top of your list, 2 on the bottom, and “it depends” on the rest. Fwiw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 2:54:38 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Correct, it isn't a statewide office. The FL Senate President is selected amongst thr Senators within the State Senate. The people have no say in the matter. If Senator Bob from Miami wants to be Senate President, it is just like what you're seeing for the Federal House of Representatives with McCarthy right now. Again, term limits don't stop corruption. Wilton Simpson became the Senate President because it was "his turn" since he was the "senior lawmaker" who was previously the Majority Leader. Just like McCarthy. Same with Galvano and Passidomo. In another thread, you said: Guess what, term limits doesn't stop that. It accelerates it. Instead of 40 years, it is 8 years. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So, you say that Senate President isn't a separate elected position. Then does that mean they have to be elected in their district? Again, term limits don't stop corruption. Wilton Simpson became the Senate President because it was "his turn" since he was the "senior lawmaker" who was previously the Majority Leader. Just like McCarthy. Same with Galvano and Passidomo. In another thread, you said: Ego is a big problem with career politicians, especially ones that think they are "entitled" to the job. This fiasco is a "I'm in charge and you're not" kind of idiocy. He needs to get over himself if he wants to be Speaker. If he can't, then he'll never be Speaker. Guess what, term limits doesn't stop that. It accelerates it. Instead of 40 years, it is 8 years. OK, so if Joe Blow gets term-limited out from being elected in his district, by definition, he can't be Senate President any more. You see how this works? Term limits absolutely stops the kind of career corruption we see in DC. There wouldn't be a "ranking member" as all of them would be either on term 1 or 2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 3:07:08 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: OK, so if Joe Blow gets term-limited out from being elected in his district, by definition, he can't be Senate President any more. You see how this works? Term limits absolutely stops the kind of career corruption we see in DC. There wouldn't be a "ranking member" as all of them would be either on term 1 or 2. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So, you say that Senate President isn't a separate elected position. Then does that mean they have to be elected in their district? Again, term limits don't stop corruption. Wilton Simpson became the Senate President because it was "his turn" since he was the "senior lawmaker" who was previously the Majority Leader. Just like McCarthy. Same with Galvano and Passidomo. In another thread, you said: Ego is a big problem with career politicians, especially ones that think they are "entitled" to the job. This fiasco is a "I'm in charge and you're not" kind of idiocy. He needs to get over himself if he wants to be Speaker. If he can't, then he'll never be Speaker. Guess what, term limits doesn't stop that. It accelerates it. Instead of 40 years, it is 8 years. OK, so if Joe Blow gets term-limited out from being elected in his district, by definition, he can't be Senate President any more. You see how this works? Term limits absolutely stops the kind of career corruption we see in DC. There wouldn't be a "ranking member" as all of them would be either on term 1 or 2. Redistricting resets the clock, so if someone is elected in 2022 and they're around in 2030 when the next census happens and the districts are redrawn, BAM, clock is reset and they have another two terms they can run for again with no break. They build time and seniority in office thst way. State Reps serve two-year terms and can serve a total of four of 'em in one shot without a break. Senators serve four year terms, hence limited to two terms. Every two years, the Senate elects a new Majority Leader and a New Senate President. Dennis Baxley has been in office since 2010 and due to redistricting, the clock has been reset for him. He has another eight years he can be in office.  Attached FileHe's now Number 3 in the Senate due to seniority. He served 7 years, took a two year break, served another 6 years in the House, then did 6 in the Senate and due to redistricting, he has another 8, and if he sticks around for 2030, he'll get another 8 again. He's been in office since Bill Clinton was President. Again, term limits don't stop what you think it does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 6:10:21 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And yet State attempts to impose term limits were correctly ruled unconstitutional and thrown out. As were Congress's attempts to change their eligibility requirements... twice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 6:12:26 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Site the part that forbids it. I won't hold my breath either. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S3-C3-3/ALDE_00013347/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 6:15:51 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 23rd of last month. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Oh wait... you mean AFTER the vote to make McCarthy speaker designate they helped pass a budget bill that basically took all the teeth away from the incoming congress? Can't see why 20 principled conservatives would feel the deal had been broken then... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 6:23:44 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FL has an eight-year term limits for Senators. Former members that hit thr term could be elected again after a two-year break. They traditionally run for another office and come back. So if Senator Joe Blow is termed out, he runs for County Dog Catcher and runs again for Senate and wins. Thus, he is the ranking lawmaker with time in office. Traditionally, they'll do their full allowed terms in the House, term out, run for Senate, term out, run for some high paying County Office, and run back for the legislature. Redistricting resets the clock, so if someone is elected in 2022 and they're around in 2030 when the next census happens and the districts are redrawn, BAM, clock is reset and they have another two terms they can run for again with no break. They build time and seniority in office thst way. State Reps serve two-year terms and can serve a total of four of 'em in one shot without a break. Senators serve four year terms, hence limited to two terms. Every two years, the Senate elects a new Majority Leader and a New Senate President. Dennis Baxley has been in office since 2010 and due to redistricting, the clock has been reset for him. He has another eight years he can be in office. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/122381/Screenshot_20230105_020419_jpg-2661041.JPG He's now Number 3 in the Senate due to seniority. He served 7 years, took a two year break, served another 6 years in the House, then did 6 in the Senate and due to redistricting, he has another 8, and if he sticks around for 2030, he'll get another 8 again. He's been in office since Bill Clinton was President. Again, term limits don't stop what you think it does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 7:49:41 AM EDT
[#19]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 8:01:49 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Any black non rino reps? Make them vote against a black guy. Just for Shits and Grins They did... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 8:05:46 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Term limits don't solve anything. California has them and looked at how fucked up that state is. Term limits remove the responsibility of the voter. The people ultimately hold the power and refuse to exercise it. Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Yikes.  It'll also create more retirees that will get lifetime retirement, medical and whatever-else benefits that are paid by |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 8:06:08 AM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 8:07:58 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The best thing that could happen is that no Speaker is chosen. Not a single bit of conservative legislation will get through the Senate. The only stuff will be compromise bi-partisan shit that screws the USA. With the House unable to seat new members or vote, then none of that legislation will pass. Eventually the media will move on. People will get used to the government doing nothing and more will see that no legislation is better than bad legislation. And hopefully the federal government shuts down. Then people will eventually get used to Big Daddy Gov not being there. I know people that lose their minds every time the federal government has shut down. They act like OMFG there is no government watching over us... we're doomed! The government is so big in the economy, both in government jobs, but also the massive economy that serves government and its workers, that it would be catastrophic and would sink so many people. That’s how you get more armed conflict or even rebellion, if you have a country with no government and a private sector that has built itself around government policy and spending. The private industries would have to spend a lot more to replace the things government now does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 8:08:17 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: 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 personal attacks. Like you said, they are objectionable for a conservative. They are the complete opposite of the original intent to create part-time, citizen legislators not full-time political-creatures. Maybe you aren’t familiar with the last winning national GOP platform, 2016? Advancing Term Limits Our national platform has repeatedly endorsed term limits for Members of Congress. In response, the GOP Leadership in 1996 brought to a vote, in both the House and Senate, a constitutional amendment. It failed to secure the necessary two-thirds vote in the House, where 80 percent of Republicans voted for it and 80 percent of Democrats voted against it. Every Senate Republican voted to allow a vote on term limits, but the Democrats killed it by a filibuster. Blocked by that opposition, Republicans sought other ways to modernize the national legislature. They set term limits for their own committee chairs and leadership positions, and by law they required Congress to live by the same rules it imposes on others. To make further progress, to advance a constitutional amendment for consideration by the states, we must expand the current Republican majorities in both chambers. https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/static/home/data/platform.pdf |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 8:09:03 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Term limits absolutely stop that. That's the entire point of them. If they can't stay in a position very long, there is no climbing the ranks. There is no "I've been here for 40 years and am now the ranking member" of a committee. There is no time to set up a perpetual grift. All the things you're grousing about are the very things term limits prevent. It’s cute you think the politicians are running the show in DC. It has always been the staffers. The staffers shift around from R to D as it makes no difference to them. They know the game, they make the rules, the empty suit who gets elected is their vessel, term limits do not stop them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 8:10:08 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
I was trying to think of that guy’s name earlier! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 8:11:20 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I really can’t articulate why but, term limits just sounds like one of those bits of legislation that wouldn’t solve anything and have a good chance of backfiring and making things worse. My personal opinion is, if you don’t want them there forever since it’s not really supposed to be a forever job anyway, insist on the elimination of the congressional retirement plan. Excellent idea... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 8:17:14 AM EDT
[#28]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 8:20:22 AM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 8:30:45 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This Frank Luntz? In 2012, Luntz conducted a poll that found that sizable majorities of gun owners supported gun control measures such as mandatory criminal background checks, minimum age restrictions, and eligibility requirements for concealed weapon permits.[41] |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 8:31:07 AM EDT
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 8:32:18 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This Frank Luntz? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted:
This Frank Luntz? In 2012, Luntz conducted a poll that found that sizable majorities of gun owners supported gun control measures such as mandatory criminal background checks, minimum age restrictions, and eligibility requirements for concealed weapon permits.[41] And this one too. pollster-frank-luntz-i-would-bet-on-trump-being-gop-nominee-in-2024/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 8:33:47 AM EDT
[#33]
DAY 3 of The Schadenfreude is DELICIOUS
Term limit pro/con bros I enjoy the debate. Start another thread though and dont muck this one up anymore or get it locked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 9:05:22 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless McCarthy gives up on being the speaker, not every demand has been met. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 9:35:32 AM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 9:38:40 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 9:45:54 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 23rd of last month. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. Not a budget. It was a funding bill. We haven’t passed a real budget in 20 years. There is a difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 9:56:45 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Rule 1: if GrifterPundit is reporting something has happened, the opposite has happened. Fact. How on earth do people still push the trash that site puts out? Is the need for news which self validates one’s beliefs that high? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 10:05:06 AM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 10:14:08 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: DAY 3 of The Schadenfreude is DELICIOUS Term limit pro/con bros I enjoy the debate. Start another thread though and dont muck this one up anymore or get it locked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 10:24:03 AM EDT
[#41]
In for another day of embarrassment for our nation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 10:24:38 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Term limit arguments are because people are stupid and deserve the government they elect. It's unfortunate when we have to live with the results. Im not saying the debate cant/shouldnt be had, but take it to its own thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 10:27:24 AM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 10:29:25 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Awesome |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 10:30:28 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In for another day of embarrassment for our nation. Embarrassed by Americans standing up for what they believe in rather than bowing down to group think?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 10:31:45 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In for another day of embarrassment for our nation. I am enjoying it |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 10:33:57 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SMH. He still doesn't get it. Remember his Meme? Elon is a leftist, just the left went psycho while he stayed the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 10:34:15 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably just me, but "giving in" in DC to me just means he'll lie his way out of it or just outright knife in the back if it suits his agenda later in the session. I mean, I wouldn't trust anyone or anything in DC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 10:35:11 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In for another day of embarrassment for our nation. What is so embarrassing? This is great, for several reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2023 10:36:03 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
|
|
|
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
Attached File