is the only way to prevent "paid for" politicians. If the president is limited, so should be everyone else.
How do we make that happen? No politician would vote for it.
Comments (108)
sorted by:
is the only way to prevent "paid for" politicians. If the president is limited, so should be everyone else.
How do we make that happen? No politician would vote for it.
Term limits say we the people are too dumb to vote out a lifetime politician. But maybe we are too dumb to vote them out and term limits might be necessary. But even that won’t stop big government. Never forget it’s K Street lobbyists that have been creating legislation since the 90s. I’ll take a lifetime politician that writes their own bills over an endless supply of puppets for K Street. We need to demand our elected officials are writing legislation that solely benefits their constituents.
Actually the problem you are trying to solve is our education problems. People just aren't educated enough on their rights, the constitution, history, and how to be an active voter at all levels of government. They literally don't teach you this stuff in public schools anymore. The Republic that we wish to save from the commies hinges on the public being well educated and informed. Term limits just means the criminals have to get in government and commit crimes in a shorter period of time. If we were upset with a government official we just engage impeachment. Term limits don't solve the issues you think it does
Thank you. Term limits are the reason we had George H Bush, and why we only get Trump for 8 years.
If applied to Congress, all we would do is create an unelected beaurocratic class of congressional staffers. Because that is where the institutional memory and knowledge would be retained.
This isn't the Executive. The Congress is a more representative body that can provide it's own checks and balances more effectively. Any new representative is going to bring new energy into the office and remove opposition in their own ranks. In effect, it might do more to actually drain the swamp than not.
The Swamp isn't caused by length of exposure time.
It is caused by the corrupting influence of power. Unaccountable power is the general source of the problem.
Installing term limits merely shifts the knowledge of how and who to work with into the unaccountable staffers and lobbyists further reducing the already limited amount of accountability we still have.
Who hires the staffers? Wouldn't new people be more likely to eliminate old staffers?
Not the smart ones. If you really pay attention, even the anti establishment renegades end up hiring established staffers into their offices about a year in. They realize that its the only way to get anything done.
Yep. I would prefer no individual shall claim government funded paychecks for more than 16 years of their life.
Granted this still allows for interns & deep state to operate.
I do think term limits can be acceptable but they're not going to be short. I'm thinking like 30-ish years as a rep/senator combined (Federally). Throw on 8 years as a president and you're still shy of some of the career politicians.
I think 3 terms for Senate and 8 for house. 18 and 16 years respectively.
I am thinking 20 tops to prevent nearly full life employment by government funded agencies. It should be done as a service/sacrifice of time, not a career.
The govt employees and staff first have to be term limited.
Also news needs to be real journalism not propoganda. Because even the educated can be misled.
Buying new politicians ever other year gets pretty expensive after a while.
Especially when they're not running in their final term and they're more concerned about their legacy.
100%. I don't think term limits are the issue. I think it's the mass lobbying that happens.
Absolutely. That's why I would also advocate campaign fiance reform and limit funds to individual contributions from the districts that candidate represents.
I am actually starting to hear the argument that our legal system is so complex that we need career politicians because these are the only people who will be able to understand all of this.
Like what the fuck? Our legal system should be simple, your average high school grad who is 35 years old should be qualified to be POTUS if they wanted to run for office. Fuck this career politician bullshit, and fuck the whole "you need a law degree to be a politician" bullshit.
Agreed. Having Yale and Harvard grads run federal government has not worked out for We The People.
NO politician should be in office their entire life. Just look at Biden and Pelosi. One has dementia and referred to black people as the N word at one point in his career, at a time it wasn't really condemned, that long in office, the other is a pill addicted, alcoholic who looks likes she's melting before your eyes. It's ridiculous.
Convention of States is our best bet. Check out conventionofstates.com. Btw, it’s going to require us to team up with some people that we might not usually get along with. Anyone who is anti-establishment, right, left, middle, should be teamed up with to get this done.
Who chooses the delegates? We see Soros has bought multiple local elections already.
If we go down this road my concern is he will easily get 2/3 of the delegates elected with branding & marketing.
Dan Bongino had some great & grave concerns about this.
Yep. It benefits everyone. Should be a non-partisan concept.
Mandatory retirement age in Congress and even the Supreme Court would be a start. President is limited to 8 years so age isn't as important unless you get a party pushing a dementia patient like Biden, but in normal times it theoretically would never happen.
If term limits are placed on politicians, but not their staff, then political staffers will eventually have more power and influence than you could ever imagine. Politicians don't actually write their own bills or speeches, staffers do. Staffers often tell them how to vote. Term limits give the unelected men behind the curtain tremendous power.
Limit all federal govt held and funded positions with a few exceptions. Like the janitor working at the Capitol building, the receptionist at the Smithsonian etc
Limit the staffers too
The actual counter is an increasing division of power among appointed representatives. When too much power is allocated into too few representatives, high amounts of corruption is inevitable. It's more difficult to bribe and orchestrate corruption across larger numbers of less empowered representatives, in other words. Term limits would have only a partial impact on this and not achieve the result we'd really seek.
We must instead remove power from Federal authority and send it back to the state and local governments. We also need to return to the older model for determining Federal representation, sourced upwards from the state legislatures instead of via direct democratic voting.
Call a constitutional convention of states to draft new amendments to the constitution:
1st amendment protects not just from government but also from private businesses, the internet is an extension of the public square, online privacy by default by law, mass Collection, tracking, and/or sale of an individual‘s data/location is a breach of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments
2nd amendment clarified to allow for purchasing, ownership of, carrying openly or concealed of, and use of handguns, rifles, and shotguns for use in hunting, self-defense, national defense, and resisting government tyranny
citizenship by birth to citizen parents or naturalization only
term limits on governors, mayors, and State and federal congress and staffers. (For congress and staffers, I would be ok with 10 years at State+ another 10 at federal level)
undo 17th amendment to return selection of US senators to state legislature, mandatory id to vote nationwide
Edit: oops I almost forgot,
nationwide ban on abortion
end federal war on drugs, send the decision About wether to legalize, regulate, and tax them back to the states
abolish income tax and property tax on residential homes and small businesses
I like these, but would 1 mean we'd not be able to deport liberals from our own forums? I see the argument that very big ones like Twitter and Reddit had become public forums, but... It's messy.
Also mixed feelings on term limits. I see the argument for them. I'm not against them. But I'm not sure I'm for them. They can manipulate a lot and make their entire career about staying in power, but at the same time, a limit says we the people are too stupid to pick our own reps for as long as we like them.
Interested in your views since you seem to have thought on these issues a lot.
I wouldn’t say I’ve given these topics a lot of thought, just some. Anyway, For free speech, I was thinking more along the lines of financial services not being allowed to deny you service because you are a conservative or a Christian. There are currently plenty of limits on free speech that I agree with like no defamation and no inciting violence, panic, or sedition, and no public indecency.
As for term limits, the longer someone is in office, they are more likely to become much more politically powerful, are much more likely to be corrupted by that power or by special/ foreign interests, and they become much more likely to remain in office either by the incumbent advantage or by voter/election fraud. I don’t like that there are so many people elected to office that have been there for 20, 30, or even 40 years. It makes those people drift out of touch with the people who elected them.
I agree with financial institutions being, by nature essential services. ISPs as well. Full first amendment rights for all consumers. Little less sure where I stand on websites-some, for certain, are completely private businesses; in our case, we present ourselves as a topical forum with a specific accepted slant. Even other .wins are technically separate entities from TheDonald, we don't host them as subreddits. Nobody would begin an interaction with this site without knowing you have to be pro-Trump to post or vote.
Defamation, calls to violence, all that but public indecency I agree with, and I think freedom of speech is so under attack on the broader issues that I'll be happy when the day comes when arguing the line of public indecency becomes majorly relevant. Should Gilbert Godfrey be able to read the raunchiest lines from 50 Shades of Gray on a public street corner? Should I be able to have a private but naughty conversation in a public place where someone, including children, may overhear? I think yes to both, but I do also see the difference to those two for debate.
I'm taking in different viewpoints on term limits and still unsettled where I fall. I do agree with all of your points about it, especially in light of Obama's abuse of power to keep his own party in power; imagine what he could and would have done if he personally were running again, if it were to maintain his own power rather than to make sure she got Her Turn.
So thanks for the insight!
The individual website issue certainly IS nuanced, and I would hope there would be an aspect of freedom of association applied. I’m okay with websites like us where we say that this is our viewpoint and only come here if you agree. The left should be allowed to have this as well, as long as they are open and honest about it, without pretending they are fair, balanced, and neutral.
As for the public indecency, what I was mainly thinking of was stuff like the nyc gay pride parade type stuff where people are running around naked and/ or with dildos strapped all over themselves. Really I’d be fine as long as there is no public nudity, or clearly violent or sexual language in places that children could reasonably be expected to be at that time of day. A comedian on stage doing a raunchy or vulgar set would be fine with me, anyone who doesn’t like it can either not buy a ticket, or get up and leave. Demonic drag queen story time at the local library’s kids corner? Hell no. As for where the line between those two should be, I have no clue.
These days, I'm forced to wonder that if Constitutional Amendments are important enough to enshrine as critical limits to government, why aren't they also for every individual, organization or company as well. Maybe I haven't thought it through well enough (entirely possible), but it seems like that would ensure a society closer to the one we envision.
I have a hard time with the whole premise due to how local elections are so easily bought by Soros.
That said:
'#1 Any service funded by data collection & sales is a public forum. Any paid/donation funded services should not be held to the public forum standard. Also any entity that receives government funding will be considered a public forum area.
'#4 Four years each would be better IMO, but eight at the very most for staffers.
'#8 pulls be better IMO 'No individual shall pay more than 10% of their income per year in tax & shall choose which taxes to pay for with that 10% (property, sales, income/town, state, federal)
I would add:
'#9 All local police chiefs & top law enforcement positions in states shall be elected officials.
Could you clarify what you mean? Are you saying let people pick between:
paying property taxes at local level
paying sales taxes at state level
paying income taxes at federal level
Or are you saying let people chose which way to pay (property, sales, or income) and who gets the money (local, state, federal)?
How would sales taxes work in any of those scenarios? How would businesses know wether we have opted to pay sales taxes or not? How would businesses know who the tax money should go to? How would the government know that we had actually been paying the sales taxes? Would the local, state, or federal government have access to our banking records to see when we buy things to check that we are properly paying sales taxes? I don’t think optional sales taxes would be very practical.
Let the people choose which way to pay & which level of government gets those funds. Cap the amount that can be paid in tax of every single individual based on their ability to produce value.
Good point in the sales tax regarding businesses not knowing, though it could be as easy as setting a federal flat sales tax, income tax goes to states, and any sale done online or through a CC/Debit transaction should be easy enough to track.
End of the day any of these should be paid at the end of the year by individuals instead of by others (ie employers paying half of the income tax).
If we didn't change things up, POS systems could easily request that sales tax be paid to the state & ask if your yearly deductible had been met.
In reality a flat tax of some sort is the easiest to make work.
Let the people choose which way to pay & which level of government gets those funds. Cap the amount that can be paid in tax of every single individual based on their ability to produce value.
Good point in the sales tax regarding businesses not knowing, though it could be as easy as setting a federal flat sales tax, income tax goes to states, and any sale done online or through a CC/Debit transaction should be easy enough to track.
End of the day any of these should be paid at the end of the year by individuals instead of by others (ie employers paying half of the income tax).
If we didn't change things up, Point Of Sale systems could easily request that sales tax be paid to the state & ask if your yearly deductible had been met using a tax account/card that tallied the total paid every year.
In reality a flat tax of some sort is the easiest to make work.
I have run some numbers. The way to reduce congressional corruption is actually to increase the head count.
If we added 220 new congressional seats Red States would pick up enough to shift control back to the GOP. It would also change up the Electoral College numbers, but not the ratios.
The main problem is fitting 220 more people into the House Chamber. Imagine if every day voting in there looked like the State of the Union. Plus the office space it would need.
If only we had a President that had experience in real estate redevelopment.
Hell, add 2,200 if it ensures we'll secure American values and freedoms over the garbage sell-outs we have now.
An Article V convention could be used to amend the constitution without needing to go through Congress, because the founders knew that sometimes Congress is ass hoe
https://conventionofstates.com/
Is how we make it happen.
Signed up, thanks
The only way I see is to vote out enough of them and vote in those that would vote for it. This would have to happen within a very short time, so as avoid the newly elected becoming part of the problem.
That doesn't work, either. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) promised he would serve only two terms. At the end of his second term, he ran for reelection to a third term.
He would have won, but died in a plane crash (chartered plane, flew into heaving icing conditions). The party substituted perennial loser Walter Mondale, and he might have won, but Wellstone's sons turned the funeral into a campaign event for Mondale. Moderate Democrats in MN were appalled, and either stayed home or voted for Norm Coleman.
Fun fact: Mondale was never elected to any office by challenging the incumbent. He was only re-elected, after being appointed to the office.
Congressional term limits are on Trump's agenda for 2nd term. Not sure exactly what the process to bring that about is, but for what it's worth, he's aware career politicians are part of the problem.
Sign up to be a poll worker for the election and help push this one step closer! www.eac.gov
Still gott get those kickbacks from the lobbyists, and no dabbling in the stock market taken care of too
How about we ban foreign influence altogether. Make foreign finance punishable with jail time. And, any representative that holds dual citizenship with another country is ousted from their position immediately.
Hell, yes! We cannot allow situations like Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, Biden and many others to happen again. Must be changed!
With or without term limits, one of the real threats is the 4th branch of the federal government: the bureaucracy - all of those agencies are delegated the writing of specific rules (read: laws) once Congress shirks their responsibility to write them with the bills they pass.
Also no more big companies paying these politicians in stocks, gift, and letting them buy property below market value. We the people have to have control not companies and unions.
Term limits for unelected bureaucrats. All federal civil employees should get time limited contracts - just like the military. Four years for non-technical, six for technical with an option to petition for an additional term and that's it.
Term limits are only the top layer. Its the employees underneath them, running their offices that have the real power. They are writing our bills and getting to influence things on a scale not imaginable by the founders. Those are the people that need limits as well. We didnt elect them but they are the ones wielding the real power.
Washington DC is a Byzantine labyrinth. The first term of any congressman is basically spent figuring out where to find the bathrooms and his committee meetings (if he's lucky).
Term limits will not address the fundamental issue which is: The concentration of beaurocratic power and the public treasury in Washington DC.
All term limits will do is cement the under layer of unelected staffers as the perpetual power base.
I think Rick Scott campaigned on this, but don't know how far his bill has gone. Hard to get those in power to literally vote themselves out
The problem being the deep state and them having their jobs for life, I don't know if it's gonna solve anything, but it's a first step. What about all the bureaucrats living in the shadows though? If we can't get rid of them, how do we keep them accountable?
I am absolutely in favor of this. I used to oppose term limits because I believed the Uniparty line that it would cause the Federal bureaucracy to take over and good politicians couldn't stay in office.
Both of those arguments are bogus because 1) the federal bureaucracy has already taken over and only those who are not beholden to it can take it back. 2) We'll have better politicians if we change them often because they be more intent on having a good legacy than becoming millionaires by insider trading.
Remove the pensions. No fat retirement checks.
We go and remove them?
vote themselves out of a cushy job with plenty of opportunities to make big money by swindling? no, they wont vote for it.
Can Trump issue an Executive Order if possible?
Pay every congressman $1B to sign it in to law and to leave immediately. Deal done. Cost about half a trillion, cheaper than Covid reparashuns.
I want Trump to tweet: "YOU GET A TERM LIMIT. YOU GET A TERM LIMT. YOU GET A TERM LIMIT."
Answer: An Article V Convention Of States...
Also add: time limits for appointed positions. And mandatory retirements for bureaucrats.
For federal office (Congresscritters), a Constitutional Amendment is required.
Without a convention, 2/3rds of both the House and Senate must vote to propose the amendment and send it to the states for ratification.
Regardless of how the Amendment is proposed, 3/4ths of the states (a total of 38) must ratify it, by a majority vote of each state legislature.
Various states tried to impose a term limit on THEIR Congresscritter. All were voided by SCOTUS in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton
I wan terms limited to 1 term, it can be a long term, but just one. That whay they aren't always campaigning to get reflected
Gotta let people get good at their job. Takes years.
Limit to 8 years total for elected, 4 years for staffers.
Except this does nothing to address the permanent bureaucracy. They're the real problem.
If anything, term limits will exacerbate this problem.
How about adding tiered limits to govt "service" we have unelected officials running the show quietly for 30 years in the background. I think that's a bigger problem than the figureheads that actually get elected.
You have to use the 2A
It requires an amendment to the constitution.
Gnarly process... But I think Left and Right normal American would support it. Founders built a pathway for "us" to do it without feds.
And tenure limits on government employees.
Yes!!!
no politician... they are supposedly representatives. Let's remind them of that
Convention of States.
A Convention of States can amend the Constitution without Congress.
https://conventionofstates.com/
...except Trump. GEOTUS for life.
I FUCKING LOVE EVERYONES INPUT. I understand that term limits may not solve everything. I firmly believe it will destroy pelosi types, and bring new ideas often. Lots of good shit here, Pedes.
Term limits for all but judges, and even though most elected officials have a good amount of money and don't depend on their salary, out of principal their pay should only be the median income of the state they represent, and the president should only be paid the median income of the country.
And open financial accounts for the public to review for them and their family!
I fear with that, a radical psychopath commie would get elected and somehow implement actual communism in their jurisdiction for 4 years because they wouldn't have to worry about reelection. In fact that would just be the standard strategy. Also what do you do if there arent enough candidates to fill the constant turn around? It only works for President.
Term limits for legislators would cause lobbyists and bureaucrats to rule even more. Keep the President at 2 terms and all legislative bodies at no term limits.
Now!
Career politicians was never the intent. Founding fathers envisioned citizens doing civic duty to serve
Now it’s become a lifetime job w lifetime benefits and scores of corruption. Most of these folks never work in private sector. How can they now what it’s like in private sector.
ON THE 2ND TERM AGENDA
Believe me folks,
. THE BEST IS YET TO COME