You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
76

[–] Majorfatboy 0 points 76 points (+76|-0) ago 

Term limits for congressmen is something we've been needing for a looonng time. Why we've let a bunch of 98 year old dustbags sit around giving themselves raises every year just for meddling in a nation that has long since outgrown them for this long is a real head scratcher.

0
20

[–] SuperConductiveRabbi 0 points 20 points (+20|-0) ago 

There's an even bigger risk than just having old people sitting around making laws: if you're a lobbyist it's a much better investment if your stoolie is going to be in office for years and years. If there are term limits at least they have to reinvest every time there's a change.

[–] [deleted] 10 points 8 points (+18|-10) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
14

[–] selpai 1 points 14 points (+15|-1) ago 

The point isn't to put your faith in the integrity of men. The point is to craft a system where a lack of integrity is either irrelevant, or identified and filtered out. Congress isn't meant to be a glorified parliament, a council of a few wise men. It's meant to be a representation of the citizen population. It was designed to be protean. The problem isn't a lack of term limits. The problem is that the proportionality of representation in congress is too low. The national population has doubled many many times, since the cap was introduced. It needs to be removed. When there are 11 thousand members of congress, term limits won't matter very much.

0
3

[–] AutisticMemeocracy 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The implication is that, people "are qualified" to be in congress. A firefighter or someone who learns a trade is a poor comparison. Yes, it's incorrect to think that they need to stop being a firefighter just because they've been doing it too long. However, a congressman is not supposed to be a career. A politician isn't supposed to be a career. It's skills involve negotiation and legal jargon, which is best served by any businessman. The "trade" as seen in today's Congress that require it to be a career involve "connections" and "cronyism". As such, to prevent someone from holding so much power over time, there should right well be limits on how long they serve - they should serve their time and then move along. Would we have professional jurists? Of course not.

Ideally accountability and public scrutinty should be brought forefront as true issues. But in the reality of life, we cannot just rely on people who have become very comfortable in their position of senator to suddenly be trusted to be a stand-up person and be transparent on their actions and connections.

Of course, any such "affirmative action" should he disregarded as well.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Uncle_Tractor 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Question; how do those old dustbags get re-elected? Why does nobody run against them?

0
3

[–] ShinyVoater 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The people voting in the primaries are usually the same group year after year and even then a good number don't actually pay attention to the campaigns. This means that the incumbent generally gets reelected based on name recognition alone. Come the generals, party tends to be the biggest deciding factor.

2
2

[–] samy90a44 2 points 2 points (+4|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Other Candidates do run against the Incumbent(s). The core root cause problem is the Voters are simply either too stupid or are paid off to not vote for someone else. Also in major Urban areas, exp Black neighborhoods, many people are van-pooled around to different districts and they vote 3x-4x times using different names with NO proof of ID! This is how Maxine Waters (D-CA) has managed to get re-elected so many times. It's also how Obama managed to get "100%" of the Black Vote in many North and West Philly Districts in 2008. All outright voter fraud.