Term limits

[LOL BRIELUS]

Just curious how 80 % of Americans want term limits on congress, crossing both and probably all parties, yet every election cycle noone ever manages to get it passed. It's probably a campaign promise for any serious politician.

Is anyone here opposed to them?

Do the senior members of Congress just use their power in committees and such just squash and suppress?

[Parkbandit]

Just curious how 80 % of Americans want term limits on congress, crossing both and probably all parties, yet every election cycle noone ever manages to get it passed. It's probably a campaign promise for any serious politician.

Is anyone here opposed to them?

Do the senior members of Congress just use their power in committees and such just squash and suppress?

Forcing Congress to do the right thing and limit their power with term limits is a Herculean feat. We can't keep voting for people who claim they are going to make it happen.. and when they get into office, we never hear about it again. We need the states to demand a Constitutional Amendment and get it done.

[Ardwen]

A majority of Americans across all spectrums support lots of things that never happen, often for good reason, remember a vast majority of Americans supported prohibition back in the day. Politicians that don't support popularly polled opinions often win elections after all. I think it shows more the failure of polls then anything else.

[~Rocktar~]

Term limits are not the panacea that people think they are. They don't like lobbyists and career politicians, term limits create an even more powerful specialist class of career "experts" much like Faucci without the accountability.

[Gelston]

I'm both for and against term limits.

I think the politician shouldn't be a career field, it should be a short term job. How can the represent people, be the voice of the people, if they haven't been one of those people in a long time?

I also am of the mind that people should be able to elect whoever the fuck they want as many times as they want.

[Parkbandit]

A majority of Americans across all spectrums support lots of things that never happen, often for good reason, remember a vast majority of Americans supported prohibition back in the day. Politicians that don't support popularly polled opinions often win elections after all. I think it shows more the failure of polls then anything else.


Speaking for the People, not for the sitting members of Congress, what are the good reasons for not wanting term limits in Congress.

[Parkbandit]

Term limits are not the panacea that people think they are. They don't like lobbyists and career politicians, term limits create an even more powerful specialist class of career "experts" much like Faucci without the accountability.

So, it wouldn't change anything except that Congresspeople wouldn't be there for eternity.

Faucci didn't have very much accountability.

[Parkbandit]

I'm both for and against term limits.

I think the politician shouldn't be a career field, it should be a short term job. How can the represent people, be the voice of the people, if they haven't been one of those people in a long time?

I also am of the mind that people should be able to elect whoever the fuck they want as many times as they want.

I believe the good outweighs the bad though. We have term limits on most Governors, the US President..

The only reason we don't have term limits in Congress is that people in Congress are the ones protecting themselves from being forced out.

[Seran]

There are term limits in everything but the Supreme Court already: they're called elections. Your problem is with the popularity of candidates you dislike. Sucks to suck.

[Viekn]

Sorry for this long response, but it's a pretty intricately woven system that affects the issue of political term limits. Here is the real reason we don't have term limits, and never will...

What it boils down to is: America is run by big corporations.

Politicians set and govern the rules by which those corporations have to play by. Most people get into politics/elected office because they want to have a direct impact on helping their communities (cities/counties/states/country) or they at least want to be able to directly affect some type of change in one of those communities, for either selfish or unselfish reasons. If they are driven by that motivation, that motivation doesn't simply go away after so many years. They inherently want to be in office forever to continue being able to affect changes or affect the rules as long as possible. Or they simply crave power.

So therein lies your first problem: The politicians most Americans want to set term limits on, who are the only people in control of whether there are limits, don't want to be limited.

Now, it's a fact that gaining power and staying in power is mostly a factor of money. The more you have, the more you can spend on advertising, consultants, and everything that directly impacts voters wanting to vote for you, thus allowing you to gain or stay in power. Where does most of that money come from? You guessed it, big corporations.

The balance of world powers relies on a slave workforce that is dependent on those world powers for their livelihood. I don't mean slave in the traditional sense of course. Most working class (low, middle, upper middle, and some lower high class) are slaves to: credit card debt, student loan debt, mortgage debt, high property rental rates, the need to maintain health insurance (which is another scam run by the rich and powerful), insurance like home insurance where rates are kept unnaturally high, property taxes, and the delusional perception that most of us can save enough for retirement while also paying money for those things. Big corporations don't want people to retire because that reduces the number of workers generating the cash flow demanded by the world's rich and powerful. Those rich and powerful rely on a consistently refreshed pool of slave labor to generate the constant flow of money that keeps them in power and able to continue running the world. All of those mechanisms by which the working class is enslaved were created by, and continue to be maintained by, big corporations specifically for that purpose.

While big corporations have to at least look like they care about how they treat employees, not harming the environment, making sure their product/service serves a purpose and doesn't hurt people, etc., they ultimately care about one thing more than any of that: making money. And not just making money, but more and more of it every year.

Big corporations, and the global elite they serve, know that the people who have the most impact on their ability to make money is: politicians. And they are effectively allowed to donate as much money as they want to affect which politicians get elected to office, which get to stay in office, and most importantly it gives them the ability to directly influence what rules and laws politicians pass that allow companies to make money. Politicians allow lobbyists working for big corporations to literally write the language of bills they plan on trying to pass that could have an effect on that corporation.

And that is how America is actually run by big corporations as I said in the beginning. Now, to your question on term limits...

If you're a big corporation spending a bunch of money to influence a politician, do you want to have to start from scratch every few years when a new politician comes onto the playing field because the previous one you controlled through your donations had to leave because of term limits? Of course not. It's cheaper and more effective to continue supporting the politician you've been influencing to continue to be in power for as long as possible. This goes for all politicians, no matter what political party. Each political party is just controlled by different competing corporate interests.

No matter how popular an idea is, if it goes against what big corporations, and by proxy the rich and powerful who truly run this world, want, it will never happen. Thus, you will NEVER see hard term limits passed in the United States.

[The End]

[unless you also want to hear a wild tangent on the only way term limits could exist]...

Unless big corporations cease to exist, or have to completely reorganize the way they do business, because there was a complete economic and/or political meltdown and the American economy is no longer primarily based on capitalism and a "free market".

As if we truly have a free market economy now. Occasionally, some politicians, whether they're just not as beholden to big corporations or at least not willing to completely sell themselves out to them, see that because our economy is set up to primarily motivate companies to grow by both allowing and encouraging them to make as much money as possible every year, that shockingly sometimes those companies will take advantage of people or a certain situation, in order to do so. This of course has the potential to cause harm, or at least harm that could become publicly known. So some politicians, either in an attempt to do good, be seen doing good, or at least attempt to cover the fact they are basically in the pocket of these companies, will look to prevent or remedy that harm by trying to put some constraints, via government regulations on business practices, on what corporations are able to do or how they're able to do it.

Yet those politicians who try are branded by other politicians as anti-business trying to stifle the economy and blaming them for potentially forcing layoffs. Yet those same politicians who brand others as being anti-capitalism and against free market ideals, will use our tax dollars to bail out big corporations who made poor business decisions from going bankrupt because of those decisions. A truly free market economy would allow those companies to go bankrupt for making those poor decisions. A government using wealth generated by tax dollars to aid or benefit those in need is what those politicians label as "socialism" and decry as anti-American, yet they are more than willing to make use of socialism to bail out big corporations, because remember, it's big corporations that helped them gain power and continue to remain in power.

[Parkbandit]

There are term limits in everything but the Supreme Court already: they're called elections.

Term limits is not a synonym for election.

I'm not shocked you don't know this.


Your problem is with the popularity of candidates you dislike. Sucks to suck.

I'm talking about ALL congress people of BOTH parties.

Here's a list of people who the longest serving members of Congress:

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) — 47 years
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) — 41 years
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — 37 years
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY-05) — 41 years
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-04) — 41 years
Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD-05) — 40 years

Let's see if Seran's "thought process" worked out here... 2 Dems and 4 Repubs.

As usual, Seran is wrong again.

Shocking.

[Viekn]

There are term limits in everything but the Supreme Court already: they're called elections.


Term limits is not a synonym for election.

I have to agree with Parkbandit on this one. I've always hated it when people say that we already have term limits in the form of elections. Anyone who says that completely underestimates or just ignores the amount of apathy among eligible voters and both the stupidity and ignorance of likely voters in America. The combination of those things effectively negate elections as being effective as a term limit.

[Seran]

Term limits is not a synonym for election.

I'm not shocked you don't know this.



I'm talking about ALL congress people of BOTH parties.

Here's a list of people who the longest serving members of Congress:

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) — 47 years
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) — 41 years
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — 37 years
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY-05) — 41 years
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-04) — 41 years
Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD-05) — 40 years

Let's see if Seran's "thought process" worked out here... 2 Dems and 4 Repubs.

As usual, Seran is wrong again.

Shocking.

If they weren't good at their jobs and popular, they would not have been re-elected. You want to see a maximum number of times someone can be elected to office because you presumably want some sort of radical change. So be it, let's amend the constitution to put service and age limits on all branches of government: House, Senate and the Supreme Court.

[Seran]

I have to agree with Parkbandit on this one. I've always hated it when people say that we already have term limits in the form of elections. Anyone who says that completely underestimates or just ignores the amount of apathy among eligible voters and both the stupidity and ignorance of likely voters in America. The combination of those things effectively negate elections as being effective as a term limit.

You're confusing personal opinion with the way the primary process works. Do mainstream candidates see more targeted corporate donations and have more party stump support? Yes. Are primaries locked behind only those who have corporate endorsements? Not in the slightest. Individual small donor donations are huge in the age of the internet, take a look at the success of Comrade Sanders.

What you are in truth advocating for is a change to the FEC regulations surrounding soft money donations via SPACs, which I wholly agree with.

[Neveragain]

Term limits is not a synonym for election.

I'm not shocked you don't know this.



I'm talking about ALL congress people of BOTH parties.

Here's a list of people who the longest serving members of Congress:

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) — 47 years
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) — 41 years
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) — 37 years
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY-05) — 41 years
Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-04) — 41 years
Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD-05) — 40 years

Let's see if Seran's "thought process" worked out here... 2 Dems and 4 Repubs.

As usual, Seran is wrong again.

Shocking.

I can confirm that Grassley needs to go and it seams impossible to get rid of him.

To his credit, he's a campaign machine that spends every moment driving around the state when out of session.

[Parkbandit]

If they weren't good at their jobs and popular, they would not have been re-elected. You want to see a maximum number of times someone can be elected to office because you presumably want some sort of radical change.

It's not radical change to want term limits.

And there are PLENTY of people in Congress that are not good at their jobs.

Once you get in there though, it's difficult to get you out.

The swamp protects itself.


So be it, let's amend the constitution to put service and age limits on all branches of government: House, Senate and the Supreme Court.

I don't believe there should be age limits, since that is a protection under the law.. but maybe you can only stay on the bench of the SCOTUS for 20 years? 25 years?

I'm all for it.. if we can impose term limits on all members of Congress.

I would not be in favor of JUST putting limits on the SCOTUS though and leaving Congress open ended.

[Parkbandit]

You're confusing personal opinion with the way the primary process works. Do mainstream candidates see more targeted corporate donations and have more party stump support? Yes. Are primaries locked behind only those who have corporate endorsements? Not in the slightest. Individual small donor donations are huge in the age of the internet, take a look at the success of Comrade Sanders.

Wait.. you believe Bernie only accepts small donor donations from individuals?

You believe that because he told you I bet.

Let's take a look at his top donor list for 2020:

Contributor Total
Alphabet Inc $963,943
University of California $903,237
Amazon.com $781,837
Apple Inc $480,498
US Postal Service $438,076
Microsoft Corp $430,804
City of New York, NY $397,513
Kaiser Permanente $313,574
AT&T Inc $298,156
US Army $290,892
US Air Force $286,519
Walmart Inc $271,790
State of California $263,087
US Dept of Defense $247,397
Facebook Inc $240,915
US Government $239,081
US Dept of Veterans Affairs $228,427
United Parcel Service $221,358
Walt Disney Co $217,162
IBM Corp $214,977

Small individual donors indeed......

[Parkbandit]

the stupidity and ignorance of likely voters in America.

Seran would be the President and Queen of that group.

[Seran]

Wait.. you believe Bernie only accepts small donor donations from individuals?

You believe that because he told you I bet.

Let's take a look at his top donor list for 2020:

Contributor Total
Alphabet Inc $963,943
University of California $903,237
Amazon.com $781,837
Apple Inc $480,498
US Postal Service $438,076
Microsoft Corp $430,804
City of New York, NY $397,513
Kaiser Permanente $313,574
AT&T Inc $298,156
US Army $290,892
US Air Force $286,519
Walmart Inc $271,790
State of California $263,087
US Dept of Defense $247,397
Facebook Inc $240,915
US Government $239,081
US Dept of Veterans Affairs $228,427
United Parcel Service $221,358
Walt Disney Co $217,162
IBM Corp $214,977

Small individual donors indeed......

And no I didn't say he only receives small donor donations, tool. When you look at the facts, you'll see why small donors are now so pivotal.


Sanders raised nearly $180 million for his presidential bid, over 54 percent of which came from small individual donors — higher than other Democratic candidates including Biden, who got 38 percent from small donors.

[Parkbandit]

And no I didn't say he only receives small donor donations, tool. When you look at the facts, you'll see why small donors are now so pivotal.

Why are small donations "so pivotal" to campaigns?

Be specific... because Lord knows no one with an IQ above 12 can figure out what you are trying to say about any subject.

[Seran]

Why are small donations "so pivotal" to campaigns?

Be specific... because Lord knows no one with an IQ above 12 can figure out what you are trying to say about any subject.

I'm guessing you're stuck with an 11 IQ, as the quote clearly indicates more than half of the $180 million Sanders raised was from small donors. $90 million in donations must not seem like a lot to you, somehow.

[Gelston]

I'm guessing you're stuck with an 11 IQ, as the quote clearly indicates more than half of the $180 million Sanders raised was from small donors. $90 million in donations must not seem like a lot to you, somehow.

You enjoy eating small donations of poop.

[Parkbandit]

I'm guessing you're stuck with an 11 IQ, as the quote clearly indicates more than half of the $180 million Sanders raised was from small donors. $90 million in donations must not seem like a lot to you, somehow.

Why is small donations "so pivotal" to campaigns?

What difference does it make where the money comes from?

[Methais]

Just curious how 80 % of Americans want term limits on congress, crossing both and probably all parties, yet every election cycle noone ever manages to get it passed. It's probably a campaign promise for any serious politician.

Is anyone here opposed to them?

Do the senior members of Congress just use their power in committees and such just squash and suppress?

The main problem is term limits need to be done by the same people that we want to have term limits imposed on + all the extra bullshit required for another Constitutional Amendment.

The only way it would probably ever pass is if people who are currently serving are either exempt from it, or their time served either resets or is extended for X amount of time. Even then it would still be tough to pass.

[Methais]

There are term limits in everything but the Supreme Court already: they're called elections. Your problem is with the popularity of candidates you dislike. Sucks to suck.

Add "term limits" to the neverending list of things Seran doesn't understand.

[Methais]

You enjoy eating small, medium, large, and super sized donations of poop.

Fixed.