jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (29 posts)

NOTHING will ever change in America without Term Limits..............

  1. ahorseback profile image45
    ahorsebackposted 17 months ago

    Maybe Americans , by nature , are always willing to debate in the political spectrum !   Maybe that is never going to change  ,  maybe we don't want ANTHING  TO CHANGE .    Is it the differences that we love so much , is it the need for  debate , for such  divisive  dialog ?     Is it " the Fight " tha feeds our collective egos ? 

    NOTHING in America , no matter how dear the solutions are  or could  ever be  to us , Is ever going to change until we bring term limits to political offices !   Face it . That is the final solution  to almost all  of America's political problems !

    1. dahoglund profile image82
      dahoglundposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      I certaily agree that we should have term limits.  The founders of this country never anticipated that we would have an army of career politicians. Instead, they wanted citizens that would take a bit of time off from their normal life and contribute to the people their time and talents for a short timw.

      1. ahorseback profile image45
        ahorsebackposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        I agree ,  mainstream American  regulars if you will .

    2. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      "As a lobbyist, I was completely against term limits, and I know a lot of people are against term limits, and I was one of the leaders, because why? As a lobbyist, once you buy a congressional office, you don't have to re-buy that office in six years, right?" Jack Abramoff

      The language and content say it all. Other parts of the trifecta should be publicly financed campaigns to keep the money out of elections and lobby reform to eliminate special interest manipulating the vote.

    3. GA Anderson profile image85
      GA Andersonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      You are asking for another law as a power to do something American voters can already do. We can "term limit" politicians ourselves... with our vote.

      Unfortunately, I think the voter apathy that many blame is real. So if we won't do what we are easily able to do now, (vote as an individual), why do you think that will suddenly change and we will pay attention and vote good guys into the seats opened by term limits?

      I think the most likely outcome of established term limits would just be more aggressive two-term corrupt politicians instead of "carreer-er" corrupt politicians.

      GA

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Good point - will we ever pick good leaders.  No guarantee at all, of course, and our current record is absolutely abysmal at doing it.

        And I questioned somewhere else if shorter term politicians will just be more active in what they do.

      2. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        I wouldn't look at it as another law to do what the voters are apathetic to accomplish as they have already done it with the presidency. The idea of a turnover of power and ideas was written into the Constitution with two, four, six and lifetime terms to provide an overlap and provide continuity and opportunity for legislators to accomplish their goals. Unfortunately the corruptive nature that is in all forms of government, money, has wiggled its way into the scene by providing the means for many to make this a lifetime career thus defeating the nature of the turnover of members and new ideas which the Constitution intended.

        Perhaps with a time limit on their participation it will also provide a renewed expediency to get the things they were voted there to get done. Believe me I know there always will be those whose only purpose is to game the system and get done what they have on their own agenda. That is why we have recurring elections to weed them out. Whatever can be done in this direction will have to be an improvement.

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Term limits probably would help. But I do feel a little two-faced supporting the concept. It seems hard to consider it other than being just one more thing we want the government to do for us - when we could, and should be doing it for ourselves.

          I agree with your historical rationalization. I agree it would be beneficial. I agree we need to do it. But.. it is kinda tough ranting about Nanny state issues when I think term limit legislation is in the same herd Just a different color.

          We can do it. We won't do it. Let's get government to do it for us.

          GA

          1. rhamson profile image77
            rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            I try not to look at the government as a separate entity from the people. After all it is made up from our friends and neighbors. I agree it sometimes has a mind of its' own and seems to act for its' own gratification. But we are the ones who create it, support it and tear it down to serve us. As long as we believe that you can't fight city hall we will get whatever the people who do remain involved want. If you put 100 people in a room and ask them a simple question you will get a few different answers but if you ask them why they had that answer the number explodes as all have a different perspective based on their own personalities and experiences. Some will even refuse to answer why at all. There seems to be nothing constructive about that. Besides the money that would influence the outcome, a legacy is easily established in the void of a turnover of personnel. The vote has proven daunting for many and so frustrating that many don't even participate. How would you otherwise motivate the electorate to make a change if not with a change in choices if not through term limits?

            1. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              You try not to look at the government as a separate entity? Hmm... that isn't the perception I have gotten from your forum postings.

              To the 100 people point - sounds right to me.

              Why do you feel the vote is so daunting or frustrating for many voters? Registering is easy and opportunities are plentiful.

              As for the actual voting, at least for me, it is a simple drive to the polls and, depending on the line, a 10 or 15 minute process.

              Even if it did take a little work to actually vote, isn't it worth it? I suspect there are damn few folks that have to make a monumental effort to do it. Isn't voting in the same personal responsibility arena that so many folks go to to complain about Nanny State issues?

              Unfortunately I think term limit legislation is required, but only because voters are too lazy to do it themselves. Shame on us. (well, not me, I do vote diligently and intelligently - meaning I at least consider more than name recognition or party)

              So yes, I do support legislated term limits. But I do it with my hand over my mouth so you can't see which side I am speaking out of.

              ps. Do you really think more choices will motivate the previously unmotivated? Have you considered how many choices they usually have in the primaries - before voters whittle the field down to actual nominees?

              GA

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                Would it help to make the voting process much harder?  Would it keep out the people that won't make the effort to understand the nominees and problems we face?

                Just thinking out loud...

                1. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  Nope, we just need an affidavit requirement. One that says you agree with me before you can vote.

                  GA

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    lol

              2. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                At first glance I can see how you get the perception I hold government as a separate entity. My reference to it is that it is people who run it and people who corrupt it. These people good or bad should be held accountable through the ballot box and or the dismissal process afforded us to rid us of them if necessary.

                The vote is frustrating because the information by the media is either misleading, biased or just an outright lie in some cases. The daunting of it refers to the gerrymandering and repositioning of polling places. In my district I have lived at the same address for over thirty years. I have been sent changes in the polling place several times at four different schools resulting in my having to go to a different place even on the day when I show up to vote. I have seen others have the same experience and just say screw it and leave without voting.

                I don't think I would say more choices is the impetus for the movement to term limits. It is about a new choice that intercedes the big money purchase of the candidate I am advocating.

                I agree that the American electorate are very lazy when only 30% to 40% turn out for the vote. Maybe term limits is a way to compensate for the lack of participation.

                I also advocate that the primaries be open to all parties including independents. The whittling down process may make it a more competitive field worthwhile of voting. Knowing that the opposition can defeat the candidate of your choice may inspire the lazy to get out and vote as well.

      3. ahorseback profile image45
        ahorsebackposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        I almost always tend to blame  the lack of having REAL American's as representing us in office , as the biggest political problem we have .   The fact that politics becomes a "career "  IS the problem ,  One or two ...... terms for a senator or congressman ?   It would keep  plastic suits, plastic men [women ] from leading us .

        I truly believe that a housewife , a bartender ,  a carpenter or a doctor , for two , three or four years  in office  would serve ALL our needs far better than that which we allow now .   If the office was not allowed to become a career job -   the negative corporate influences wouldn't  Own America the way that it does today .

        The military industrial complex ,mass  organized labor ,  foreign financial  influences , would be the first to LOSE legislative  influence , imagine what that alone would accomplish in America.

    4. Robert Sacchi profile image86
      Robert Sacchiposted 14 months ago in reply to this

      One possible problem I see with term limits is having a Legislature that doesn't know the law or the mechanics of writing a legislation.  We could have a situation where the elected people are totally dependent on professional staffers.  The result could be to make the Executive branch all powerful and the Legislature useless.

      1. rhamson profile image77
        rhamsonposted 14 months ago in reply to this

        I would not worry about the laws being understood as Congress is made up of predominately lawyers and they are the problem. They know how to write around a law better than we can imagine. Everything can be put to a test with the Supreme Court as to whether it is legal or not so I don't think not knowing the law is a problem. The problem is that they only know too well the law and its' loopholes. They all must go for our freedom to be realized.

        "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts."    Abraham Lincoln

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 17 months ago

    I think a big problem with term limits is that power grows with time in office, and the politician is more able to "bring home the bacon" to their constituents.  More and more pork, benefiting their state/county/city at the expense of someone else.

    And the people like that - even known crooks get re-elected, partially because they bring all that free money home to the voters.  That and the fact that old and familiar is comfortable.  People will vote on nothing more than name recognition no matter how tenuous that recognition is.

  3. Stacie L profile image87
    Stacie Lposted 17 months ago

    Term limits equal the playing field and everyone knows that their time is limited so they had better do a good job or else.
    Career politicians don't worry since they have had time to build influence and wealth.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Well, either that or "make hay while the sun shines".  Never thought of it that way, but could term limits exacerbate the very problems we're trying to solve?

      1. ahorseback profile image45
        ahorsebackposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        I don't think so ,  because of shorter terms  we'd get better people in general instead of career minded  crooks ,   also a more mainstream of American !

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          I agree, and absolutely support term limits.  But I also see it as a valid concern; that the party powerhouses, whether in congress or out, will still control elections.  Requiring their puppets to act quicker but maintain the same "business as usual".  And thereby putting us all in a deeper cesspool than we were before.

          1. ahorseback profile image45
            ahorsebackposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Yes , but we have to figure out a way to get the usual career-ers [ new word ] out of office . I believe that they are our greatest enemy .  Is it not the reason behind all of  the gridlock that hinders productivity in politics ?   I just think it would benefit America greatly to get real , down to earth , laymen and women ,even more  minorities ,  into these  offices ?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Umm...for the most part I don't want "productivity" out of politicians.  We already have too many laws, and that's all they're good for; making laws.

              Yes, real, down to earth men and women that understand what it means to be an American.  Few if any of our current crop of leaders does; they just understand what it means to have power over other's lives.

              1. ahorseback profile image45
                ahorsebackposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                By the word productivity , I mean actually doing the job that we hired them for . economize , lead ,  be vigilant of the WORKING  political process .   Creating law ALL all done , optimizing the political system for the betterment of the American people is the job .

              2. rhamson profile image77
                rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                "Umm...for the most part I don't want "productivity" out of politicians.  We already have too many laws, and that's all they're good for; making laws."

                I can agree with this for the current crop of imbeciles on the hill. Perhaps if we had some leadership instead of political nonsense it might be a little more palatable.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  Well, yes, for the current crop.  Unfortunately they are but clones of what I've seen most of my life.  A random selection of actual leaders, but few and far between.

    2. ahorseback profile image45
      ahorsebackposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      This is it exactly , the entire reasoning behind all that  ails America !

  4. ahorseback profile image45
    ahorsebackposted 17 months ago

    We also have to get the McCutcheon  decision  repealed and SOON , that is the  supreme court saying that corporate America equals  a vote , or that their money actually is legally  influential  in political office buying !

 
working