There should be term limits for all 3 branches of the Government. 

1 hour ago, Outlaw said:

This is one of the most ridiculous "but Trump” responses I’ve ever seen.  He has 8 years max. The Pelosi’s Schumer’s McConnell’s etc basically can serve for life. So when it comes to discussing term limits "but Trump” does not apply in any way, shape or form. 

Term limits for the President is different.  They’re much more powerful than any one member of Congress.  In fact, I think you could make the argument that they’re more powerful than  all of Congress in modern times.

18 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Term limits for the President is different.  They’re much more powerful than any one member of Congress.  In fact, I think you could make the argument that they’re more powerful than  all of Congress in modern times.

The point is that this thread is about imposing term limits on those that don’t have them. Trump already does. So what in the actual F does he have to do with this discussion?

Or we could, you know, vote people out that have been in for a long time.  It's really the only way to enforce this anyway, since Congressmen and Senators are never going to vote for their own removal.

And The Supreme Court needs term limits more than Congress does.

3 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Or we could, you know, vote people out that have been in for a long time.  It's really the only way to enforce this anyway, since Congressmen and Senators are never going to vote for their own removal.

And The Supreme Court needs term limits more than Congress does.

The lifetime appointment to SCOTUS is there for a very specific reason.  Taking that away will make the problem that you think is there even worse.

10 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

The point is that this thread is about imposing term limits on those that don’t have them. Trump already does. So what in the actual F does he have to do with this discussion?

I said that incompetent leadership is a much bigger concern than stopping someone from serving multiple terms.  So is corruption.

Also, experience is usually regarded as a positive in the workplace.

8 minutes ago, BBE said:

The lifetime appointment to SCOTUS is there for a very specific reason.  Taking that away will make the problem that you think is there even worse.

We're worried about a couple of 70-something guys being President and making decisions that effect our lives but we're not worried about 90+ year olds making even more decisions that effect our lives?  I don't think the term should be short.  It could be for 15 years even, but it should be finite.  

Just now, VanHammersly said:

Or we could, you know, vote people out that have been for a long time.  It's really the only way to enforce this anyway, since Congressmen and Senators are never going to vote for their own removal.

And The Supreme Court needs term limits more than Congress does.

This is where is was at for a long time,  until I listened to the Nick T. interview I posted earlier. The overwhelming majority of the country wants term limits. It’s something that’s going to have to be pushed at every level. It won’t be easy to break the cycle but it can be done. 

3 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

This is where is was at for a long time,  until I listened to the Nick T. interview I posted earlier. The overwhelming majority of the country wants term limits. It’s something that’s going to have to be pushed at every level. It won’t be easy to break the cycle but it can be done. 

The overwhelming majority of the country wants a lot of things, until the political hooks are set.  If there was an organized push to set term limits (presumably through a Constitutional Amendment ratified by the states), each side would send out their propaganda wings and the sentiment of the country would change almost overnight.  If Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh were railing against it for 2 days, you'd immediately see about a 25% shift in those numbers.  The left wing media isn't nearly as effective, but over time, they'd be able to turn the narrative on their side as well.  They could flip the numbers from overwhelmingly support, to overwhelmingly oppose.  And then it would be dead.

16 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

I said that incompetent leadership is a much bigger concern than stopping someone from serving multiple terms.  So is corruption.

Also, experience is usually regarded as a positive in the workplace.

 Incompetent leadership is made worse by allowing them to use the system to keep power. Incumbents win 85% of their races. Most start campaigning for re-election the minute they win. They have the advantage of using tax payer money to campaign. Incompetent leadership in Congress is just as much an issue as in the EO. Individual members of Congress have relinquished much of their job to the incompetent leaders within their party, and in turn, they have given more and more of their power to the executive office. And that started long before trump. It’s one of the reason why we have trump and are about to settle for a guy we rejected many times before. 

The key to this is getting the State Legislators on board.  They are the ones who would benefit the most, as incumbent Senators and Congressmen are blocking them from gaining power.

You would need to get 2/3 of the State Legislatures (34 States) to vote for calling an Article V Convention to amend the Constitution.

From there, you would need 3/4 of them (38 States) to vote in favor of the proposed Amendment.

16 States have already passed such legislation, so were almost halfway there. 

 

8 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

The overwhelming majority of the country wants a lot of things, until the political hooks are set.  If there was an organized push to set term limits (presumably through a Constitutional Amendment ratified by the states), each side would send out their propaganda wings and the sentiment of the country would change almost overnight.  If Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh were railing against it for 2 days, you'd immediately see about a 25% shift in those numbers.  The left wing media isn't nearly as effective, but over time, they'd be able to turn the narrative on their side as well.  They could flip the numbers from overwhelmingly support, to overwhelmingly oppose.  And then it would be dead.

I get how hard it will be to get term limits across the board but I believe it’s a battle worth fighting. I don’t get the big push back against them though. The only argument I see is that, "it will be hard so we just have to settle for what we have.”  

16 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

I get how hard it will be to get term limits across the board but I believe it’s a battle worth fighting. I don’t get the big push back against them though. The only argument I see is that, "it will be hard so we just have to settle for what we have.”  

I just don't think it's the most effective route for reform, if the idea is to bring different, non-major-party voices into congress, especially considering what a heavy-lift it is.  I mean, most of the places where congressmen/senators are entrenched for so long are places that are either deep red or deep blue.  So, you get rid of Nancy Pelosi and replace her with AOC.  Or get rid of McConnel and replace him with a Sarah Palin clone.  Is that an earth-shattering change?  Is that worth the effort?  If you're going to push for an actual meaningful change that gives third parties a real chance and has a greater impact on long-term change, I'd push for ranked choice voting instead.

12 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

I just don't think it's the most effective route for reform, if the idea is to bring different, non-major-party voices into congress, especially considering what a heavy-lift it is.  I mean, most of the places where congressmen/senators are entrenched for so long are places that are either deep red or deep blue.  So, you get rid of Nancy Pelosi and replace her with AOC.  Or get rid of McConnel and replace him with a Sarah Palin clone.  Is that an earth-shattering change?  Is that worth the effort?  If you're going to push for an actual meaningful change that gives third parties a real chance and has a greater impact on long-term change, I'd push for ranked choice voting instead.

I don’t think that it is the most effective way, it’s just another thing to chip away at.

Finding a better system other than plurality voting is another rock we need to hammer on. One of the guys in our local LP committee is a huge advocate in this regard and has written a lot about it.  http://royminet.org/voting-elections/

Quote

Most experts agree that the Plurality voting method we use (the candidate receiving the most votes is the winner) is a significant cause of our increasing polarization.  More than 250 years ago, it was understood that Plurality is fundamentally awful.  It allows voters to indicate only their first choice of all the options, which is not nearly enough information to enable choosing the correct winner in many elections.  Thus, the single most important election fix needed is to switch to a much better voting method.

He pushes these two systems. http://royminet.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Instructions4VotersBAWVandAADV.pdf
 

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Tnt4philly said:

I don’t think that it is the most effective way, it’s just another thing to chip away at.

Finding a better system other than plurality voting is another rock we need to hammer on. One of the guys in our local LP committee is a huge advocate in this regard and has written a lot about it.  http://royminet.org/voting-elections/

He pushes these two systems. http://royminet.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Instructions4VotersBAWVandAADV.pdf
 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I agree with that guy 100%.  The way we vote is the problem, not who we're voting for.  Who we're voting for would work itself out if the method were more sound.

But like I said, either way, it's a massively heavy-lift.  And I don't think it's a smart allocation of time and resources to focus on term limits.

3 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

I said that incompetent leadership is a much bigger concern than stopping someone from serving multiple terms.  So is corruption.

Also, experience is usually regarded as a positive in the workplace.

There are 100 other threads to comment on Trump.  THIS thread is regarding term limits.  So again, the "but Trump" is hugely out of place here.  

28 minutes ago, Outlaw said:

There are 100 other threads to comment on Trump.  THIS thread is regarding term limits.  So again, the "but Trump" is hugely out of place here.  

Oh, ok.  I didn’t realize we weren’t allowed to talk about Trump in this thread.

Just now, Dave Moss said:

Oh, ok.  I didn’t realize we weren’t allowed to talk about Trump in this thread.

You're allowed to talk about whatever you want.  However, I don't see the correlation between a discussion on term limits and bringing up basically the one man in the federal government who actually falls under one.

6 hours ago, Mike030270 said:

Millennials had that...

I don't think you're going far back enough

Some people like dealing with other people when it comes to their money 🤷‍♂️

Yea, I said before. That would be the 1970s, or early 1980s. You know meaning they've been in office for 30+ years. That's the point. How much has changed and to think these guys are on top of it all and keeping them in power is just silly.

But why? If I need cash ATM. Who mails a check? Bill pay online is more secure, and quicker. Literally branches are going to go away. It is not if, but when. They are a banks only real costs. The only things I've used a bank for is cashier's checks. I can deposit either mobile or at the ATM. Pay checks direct deposit. Bill pay online. I don't get the need to "deal with other people" about money at the branch. A loan? I guess, but how often are you getting a loan?

I generally am in favor of term limits, however one caveat is that without term limits you get a more professional and less populist driven legislature. 

2 hours ago, Bill said:

I generally am in favor of term limits, however one caveat is that without term limits you get a more professional and less populist driven legislature. 

I'm not sure that our system now is doing any of that. The alt-right has had plenty of stuff pushed through over the past decade thanks to the Tea Party. I tend to vote against the incumbent, but the GOP has become a right wing nut factory. It would help having more choices and parties. Ranked choice voting and mandatory "retirement" ages, along with stronger campaign finance regulations is what I would prefer the most. Eliminating winner take all as well from the EC for the president would be another change I would consider. It would likely help turnout as many here are very conservative, but if you are in NJ, CA, NY why bother voting? I tell that to my friends when voting against GOP in NJ. It is like your vote is meaning less. The Dems have NJ and it's on lock down. I keep telling my folks to change their address to the property in Siesta Key so they can vote in FL and actually make a difference.

9 hours ago, Tnt4philly said:

 Incompetent leadership is made worse by allowing them to use the system to keep power. Incumbents win 85% of their races. Most start campaigning for re-election the minute they win. They have the advantage of using tax payer money to campaign. Incompetent leadership in Congress is just as much an issue as in the EO. Individual members of Congress have relinquished much of their job to the incompetent leaders within their party, and in turn, they have given more and more of their power to the executive office. And that started long before trump. It’s one of the reason why we have trump and are about to settle for a guy we rejected many times before. 

Here's something else I'd like to change when it comes to elections so no candidate can 'buy' an election.  We all here about how candidates have these war chests of money to spend on a campaign and this helps to keep our nation a 2 party one because only the blues and the reds have enough money behind them to get enough attention to win an election.

I'd like to take a page out of the NFL playbook:  revenue sharing.  ALL campaign donations raised by ALL the candidates gets divided up EQUALLY among the candidates so each has an equal voice they present to the public via TV/radio/digital media ads.  Level the playing field, give each candidate the same amount to run their campaign (like how the NFL has a salary cap that all teams have to adhere to) and I think we'd start to see some alternate party candidates win some elections.  Instead of just 2 candidates up on stage during a televised debate we would start to see 3+ all with equal voice and opportunity to present their case.

 

15 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

Oh, ok.  I didn’t realize we weren’t allowed to talk about Trump in this thread.

Only if it’s good things. It hurts the presidents feelings when he is criticized.