Deleted
- Thread starter jdbulldog
- Start date
- Status
Yep. Two terms for Senate. Three, maybe four, for House. Congress should not be a career path.
Feinstein will be 88 in June, and she has already applied to run again. Senate terms are 6 yrs. she will be 96 at the end of her next term
Is that dude holding down a combover to get a drink of water? Haha.
I remember my Dad water skiing and his hat blew off on his first run before he ever got wet... That combover held perfectly in place for the entire ride.
Consort is the secret boys.
I remember my Dad water skiing and his hat blew off on his first run before he ever got wet... That combover held perfectly in place for the entire ride.
Consort is the secret boys.
The problem is not term limits. It's idiotic voting bases. If Pelosi or Schumer got termed out, does anyone doubt that their constituents would vote another wackadoo right behind them?
People don't know what's good for them anymore. That's the problem.
A lot of truth to that.
My only rebuttal would be that if we had term limits at least someone is forced to come out and live in the policies they created.
This is why the 17th amendment was a bad idea. The founders knew that the people would not be able to look beyond their own narrow short sighted self interest. That is why they tried to set up a government mostly insulated from the people. There never was intended to be any campaigning for president either. I don't know how to fix that though.
We already *have* term limits. I am forever baffled why folks think more would help.
THIS. Anytime people clamor for term limits, what they are really saying is "Know who should have more power? Lobbyists and un-elected bureaucrats."
Maxine Waters, perhaps the lowest-IQ person in Congress, and certainly one of the least-impressive people to ever hold a house seat, won her district with 71% of the vote. People vote for the incumbent because they don't know what's good for them, and they can't think for themselves.
Maxine Waters' district is crime-ridden and crumbling. She doesn't even live in her own district - she lives in a mansion in a different district. Her opponent was actually from the district and was a young, impressive guy. She still got 70% of the vote. People are stupid.
The House of Representatives should be increased to a point where each district is approximately the size of the smallest state's population. Currently, Wyoming has about 675,000 people. So, this scenario would give Mississippi probably 1 more Congressman.
The US Senate as an institution should be dropped into an active volcano.
What is your definition of term limits other than President? Because right now people like Feinstein, McConnell, Pelosi, Schumer and countless others have made a career out of "representing" their constituents while making laws that don't apply to themselves and getting filthy rich in the process.
Bingo, we need campaign contribution limits worse than we need term limits, although I'm not opposed to term limits if there is campaign finance reform.
We can solve the Senate by eliminating the 17th amendment. Congress it self will not do it but under Article 5 the States can require Congress to convene a convention to change the constitution. It would only take 34 states to do it. While there is a convention the States could force them to add a amendment to limit the amount of time one can serve in the House of Reps. It's like everything else. If you want to change DC you have to start at the State level. They make elections laws and they can change the Constitution of the United States.
US Congressmen face voters every two years. US Senators face the voters every 6 years. They can rather easily be "term limited".
Three of the 4 persons you list are Senators, and if I had to guess, your probably dislike the institutions, rules, and outcomes of the Senate far more than individual Senators. If so, I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
Three of the 4 persons you list are Senators, and if I had to guess, your probably dislike the institutions, rules, and outcomes of the Senate far more than individual Senators. If so, I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY.
No Democrat ran against her and the Republicans (wisely) don't even bother investing money into non-winnable districts. I don't disagree that a lot of voters are idiots, and probably more so in that district. But they really never get a chance to vote for a realistic better candidate than Waters. Same with us here in Mississippi. We get Cindy Hyde-Smith because no decent potential Republican candidates want to commit political suicide.
The guy running against her ran aggressively and money was pumped into that race. He had a couple of really good media spots. Those voters had a choice. They chose to take the cyanide pill instead of the vitamin.
As for Cindy Hyde-Smith, I agree. She has the machine behind her. But I think you're going to see a different landscape in 2022. There's going to be lots of effort to primary entrenched republicans across the country. I don't think it helps the party, but it at least starts to get people thinking about their options. On the democrat side, voters are always going to vote for the person that promises them the most free stuff.
I'm not surprised at all that you are completely ignorant when it comes to our government. The bi-cameral legislature is a feature, not a bug. Without the Senate it's mob rule. If the many people of California want to ruin their state, run off all the businesses and tax their middle class out of existence, have open borders or litter their streets with needles and crap, by all means I say let them do it. But they don't get to set the rules for Mississippi or Kansas or Ohio. That's why we have the Senate. Without it we aren't the United States of America any more.
The Governor has to face the voters and so would the state legislative who approves the appointment. It would also send more power back to the state. Third of the Senate is up for election every two years. This would take a lot of money out of DC if there was not senators running for election every two years. It solves a lot of problems. You would not need term limits in the House of Reps if the Senate was chosen by the Governor. No matter what the house does it has to get through the Senate. The Senate would constantly be turned over
Last edited:
And what is continually going on in DC isn't? This country is in trouble and they are spending this week trying to remove a guy from office who is not longer in that office. Regardless of party they don't give a **** about us. Regardless of political side we fall on they are gong to tell us what we want to here to get reelected. They never follow through. They are going to look after themselves first. Bank on that. They are there to get rich off thier foundations. Laws they do pass usually jams a big one up our asses and they exempt themselves from it.
Last edited:
Lol wut
I don’t disagree with increasing the House membership but the Senate serves its purpose like it is.
I don’t disagree with increasing the House membership but the Senate serves its purpose like it is.
Last edited:
You do realize the majority of the “slave” states in the South were in favor of a proportional representation at the Constitutional Convention?
- Status