What's the argument for term limits?

NiftyNiblick said:
I didn't vote for Ted Kennedy because of the morality of his personal life. How the fuck is that my concern?
Didn't the looney tune "born again" clowns vote for the libertine Trump because they loved his fascistic regressive politics?

I voted for him because of his votes on the senate floor.

I voted for him because of his commitment to constituent service.

I voted for him for shared ideology.

And fuck anybody who suggests that I shouldn't have voted for him as many times as I wanted to do so.

Was he somewhat corrupted by accumulated power?
So the fuck what?

Isn't that better than losing a guy whose actual policy was in line with what was beneficial to my life?

I can't think like a goodie two shoes Pollyanna thinks.

There's no point in making rules for a world that you wish existed
and then trying to apply them to the world that actually exists.
Click to expand...

Very conservative of you. I'm sure there are folks here that think you shouldn't make changes to laws to make the world more like what you imagine it should be, I just don't believe that they are politically aligned with you if you think that Ted was a "great representative" of anything but political corruption. The reality is, that is what folks do, and the very reason we have an amendment process for the constitution.
 
Damocles said:
The reality is, that is what folks do, and the very reason we have an amendment process for the constitution.
Click to expand...

Having an amendment process was one of the few things that the framers seem to have actually thought out
while composing a constitution that would get a D- at best in any reputable freshmen law class.

It's pretty useless right now, however.

The procedure to successfully amend requires an alignment of circumstances that's totally impossible in today's extremely polarized environment.

That's why people like you can successfully preserve the states' rights to gleefully fuck up the election process.
That's why people like me can successfully fight efforts toward term limits.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Having an amendment process was one of the few things that the framers seem to have actually thought out
while composing a constitution that would get a D- at best in any reputable freshmen law class.

It's pretty useless right now, however.

The procedure to successfully amend requires an alignment of circumstances that's totally impossible in today's extremely polarized environment.

That's why people like you can successfully preserve the states' rights to gleefully fuck up the election process.
That's why people like me can successfully fight efforts toward term limits.
Click to expand...

you're a totalitarian, of course you hate the constitution.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I absolutely don't agree with them.

I resolutely oppose the 22nd Amendment.

We have elections.
We can limit the term of any office holder with those.

Ted Kennedy won eight 6 year term Senate races in Massachusetts, although he didn't live to finish the last one, plus a special election for a partial term in 1962.

I was actually too young to vote for him in 1962 and 1964, no 18-year old vote yet for the latter,
but I voted for him in 1970, 1976, 1982. 1988, 1994, 2000, and 2006.

How was it anybody's business to tell his Massachusetts constituents that they couldn't vote for him?

FDR, possibly the greatest of all US Presidents, was elected four times.
He would have been President when I was born if he lived to complete his last term.

Terms limits have no reason to exist.
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of unlimited terms, but on the other hand Barack Obama would have easily won a third term and spared us from four years of the worst president in U.S. history.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I absolutely don't agree with them.

I resolutely oppose the 22nd Amendment.

We have elections.
We can limit the term of any office holder with those.

Ted Kennedy won eight 6 year term Senate races in Massachusetts, although he didn't live to finish the last one, plus a special election for a partial term in 1962.

I was actually too young to vote for him in 1962 and 1964, no 18-year old vote yet for the latter,
but I voted for him in 1970, 1976, 1982. 1988, 1994, 2000, and 2006.

How was it anybody's business to tell his Massachusetts constituents that they couldn't vote for him?

FDR, possibly the greatest of all US Presidents, was elected four times.
He would have been President when I was born if he lived to complete his last term.

Terms limits have no reason to exist.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you're a Section 8 idiot.

It stops Congress from building decades-long relationships with corporations and forces them to be public servants more.

You know, represent their constituents and their state like they're supposed to?

The other solution is to ban lobbying and treat it like the bribery that it is and prosecute it harshly.

That would solve a lot of problems for Americans.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I absolutely don't agree with them.

I resolutely oppose the 22nd Amendment.

We have elections.
We can limit the term of any office holder with those.

Ted Kennedy won eight 6 year term Senate races in Massachusetts, although he didn't live to finish the last one, plus a special election for a partial term in 1962.

I was actually too young to vote for him in 1962 and 1964, no 18-year old vote yet for the latter,
but I voted for him in 1970, 1976, 1982. 1988, 1994, 2000, and 2006.

How was it anybody's business to tell his Massachusetts constituents that they couldn't vote for him?

FDR, possibly the greatest of all US Presidents, was elected four times.
He would have been President when I was born if he lived to complete his last term.

Terms limits have no reason to exist.
Click to expand...

Was it the abandoning of the drowning girl in the car that you liked about him?

Or was it the killing of innocent babies?
 
goat said:
That's why there's a second amendment solution.
Click to expand...

No. The Supreme Court being elected for life is NOT tyranny.

You're barking up the wrong grass.

Did they teach Civics in school when you were growing up?

I just failed to find mine.. that I kept.

But yeah, that's not a hill to die on.
 
Last edited:
Matt Dillon said:
No. The Supreme Court being elected for life is NOT tyranny.

You're barking up the wrong grass.

Did they teach Civics in school when you were growing up?

I just failed to find mine.. that I kept.

But yeah, that's not a hill to die on.
Click to expand...
I'm in the camp with systemic breakdown. Politicians and judges will go into hiding. A self-imposed exile is a form of term limits.
 
goat said:
I'm in the camp with systemic breakdown. Politicians and judges will go into hiding. A self-imposed exile is a form of term limits.
Click to expand...

Pffft. Just stop. Even if all (enough) Americans rise up, most of that can go on unimpeded.

The main problems with America today are at the federal level. With the bureaus (separate from the next part), and the House and the Senate being immune to laws others have to abide by.

Who voted for if politicians get elected, they're better than us? They did! During Carter and Reagan's 2nd Congress.

That's how recently it got screwed up so bad. Carter vetoed their BS, and they were so bad, they overrode the veto.

I'm of the opinion that can be rolled back to where they have to be accountable for their actions.

It can be done.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top