Presidential term - What about one 6 year term?

[carlfense]

Political campaigns have been about: "if the other side wins, the world ends" since time immemorial.

If the last few years have taught us anything it's that the rhetoric is usually a fairly good indicator of future action.

 

 

The other question frankly has more to do with ethics reform, in my view. A probably more important, but separate question.

Agreed on both counts. At a bare minimum we need much more transparency in political donations. Actually, we need a complete overhaul of campaign finance but there is no way in hell that this is possible with the current obstruction.

[TGHusker]

 

I come at it from the other way. Term limits = less to lose = more prone to govern responsibly.

What's the surest way to win a primary in a red state? What's the surest way to win a primary in a blue state?

 

Plus if you're term limited out why not just give the richest job offer-er exactly what he or she wants? You don't really have to worry about public opinion at that point.

 

Carl, I think wt term limits there would have to be regulations that forbid a former congressperson from 1. working for a company in an industry that his committee appointments regulated, and 2. preventing him from working for as a company/association that actively lobbies Congress - a ten year ban.

[NUpolo8]

I suppose it's a good thing that nobody is saying this congress, or the Republicans, are the first to use these tactics, then. Because nobody is saying that.

 

What we're saying is, before these tools were used as a method of forcing compromise. Today, they're used to simply block everything a president is trying to do. And that's unprecedented, and not open for debate.

 

Um, no.

 

The current incantation Congress (and the one before it) are not simultaneously completely incapable of getting out of their own way and running even fundamentally sound candidates at time all the while executing the grandest of obstructionist politics. This is a team effort with one side simply content to do nothing because that's all they have to do to win.

 

Notice I'm not saying this is a correct thing, or that I'm all for the Republican policy.

 

Either way, it's getting too far away from the term limit policy topic. And you're correct about gerrymandered districts.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Simple Question: Do we really want these idiots passing frivolous bills for the sake for passing things? I don't get why being the least active Congress ever is a bad thing other than a few big issues. I don't think we need more stupid laws on the books.

[lo country]

We are simply seeing the cause and effects of year after year of politics. No, not just Obama, but the past 20 years or so, hell even back to Reagan and Tip. One side gets screwed for several years, gains power and wants pay back. Several years later same thing. It is a self perpetuating cycle of stupidity. Throw in guys can have a job with single digit approval a CEO (Pres) who dips below 50% and even lower on specific issues (No guys, not just Obama) and you have a recipe for disaster. What company would continue to employee a person who had about a 7-8% job evaluation? Or "met expectations" at less than 50%. ITS BOTH SIDES.

 

Term limits would help. Also treat Congressman, the Pres and staffers like the .mil and .gov in regards to employment outside your job. No employment with companies who do business with the govt for a period of "X" years. In the .mil and .gov, IIRC, it is predicated on rank/grade and /or position.

 

Campaign finance reform. Each candidate gets an equal amount.

 

No more electoral college. Every vote counts. You want the presidency? Campaign in Idaho. Not just NY, CA, FL and OH.

 

Recall election. You are elected by party A and fail to represent them as promised, Party A can hold a special election to recall your 7% approval rating back to the home state to be fired.

 

Its politics. They suck and its only getting worse.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Simple Question: Do we really want these idiots passing frivolous bills for the sake for passing things? I don't get why being the least active Congress ever is a bad thing other than a few big issues. I don't think we need more stupid laws on the books.

 

That's really not the point though. We wouldn't be having this conversation if Congress was relatively inactive, yet still worked together towards passing legislation when it is needed. We are having this conversation because there is a deliberate attempt by the minority party to ensure that Congress accomplishes nothing.

 

(The above is all that is in response towards you, Bray)

 

/steps onto soapbox

 

I agree with carl when he says that term limits would encourage more polarization. What's to stop a congressperson from attaining a seat as a result of other people's votes and then doing nothing all the while bringing home a big, fat paycheck? Re-election forces our elected leaders to sort of care about public opinion all the while collecting a big, fat paycheck.

 

The problem, aside from the gerrymandering, lobbyists, and special interest groups, is the public's devout support for a single party. So many people are willing to just throw blind faith into a politician simply because they have that nice R or D next to their name. And any attempt to open their eyes towards what's really going on, how they blind to just how f***** they are getting by their "elected leaders who look out for 'your best interests'" is met with straw men arguments and stupid responses such as "that's a liberal/conservative conspiracy."

 

 

Case in point:

 

Obama is in favor of tighter background checks for would be gun owners. Republicans: "Obama's tryin' to terk mer gerrrns."

 

No, he isn't you frickin imbecile. Jesus.

 

 

 

 

/steps off soapbox

[carlfense]

Simple Question: Do we really want these idiots passing frivolous bills for the sake for passing things? I don't get why being the least active Congress ever is a bad thing other than a few big issues. I don't think we need more stupid laws on the books.

Is anyone asking for the passage of frivolous bills? We have serious issues that deserve serious attention. Congress (well, half of Congress) couldn't care less.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

 

Simple Question: Do we really want these idiots passing frivolous bills for the sake for passing things? I don't get why being the least active Congress ever is a bad thing other than a few big issues. I don't think we need more stupid laws on the books.

Is anyone asking for the passage of frivolous bills? We have serious issues that deserve serious attention. Congress (well, half of Congress) couldn't care less.

Seems like people are, complaining about the least active Congress ever. If they only worked on the big issues I'd be fine with that.

[carlfense]

Seems like people are, complaining about the least active Congress ever. If they only worked on the big issues I'd be fine with that.

People are complaining about the least active Congress ever . . . for obvious reasons.

 

I'd be fine with them only working on the big issues as well. The problem is that they aren't working on any issues.

[Junior]

 

Seems like people are, complaining about the least active Congress ever. If they only worked on the big issues I'd be fine with that.

People are complaining about the least active Congress ever . . . for obvious reasons.

 

I'd be fine with them only working on the big issues as well. The problem is that they aren't working on any issues.

 

 

 

That's not true. They are working on meeting their goals as outlined the day of Obama's inauguration: to not advance anything that could be considered good for Obama. And they are doing a damn fine job of it.

[carlfense]

 

 

Seems like people are, complaining about the least active Congress ever. If they only worked on the big issues I'd be fine with that.

People are complaining about the least active Congress ever . . . for obvious reasons.

 

I'd be fine with them only working on the big issues as well. The problem is that they aren't working on any issues.

 

 

 

That's not true. They are working on meeting their goals as outlined the day of Obama's inauguration: to not advance anything that could be considered good for Obama. And they are doing a damn fine job of it.

 

I guess they did shut down the government as well so they haven't done nothing.

[Junior]

 

 

 

Seems like people are, complaining about the least active Congress ever. If they only worked on the big issues I'd be fine with that.

People are complaining about the least active Congress ever . . . for obvious reasons.

 

I'd be fine with them only working on the big issues as well. The problem is that they aren't working on any issues.

 

 

 

That's not true. They are working on meeting their goals as outlined the day of Obama's inauguration: to not advance anything that could be considered good for Obama. And they are doing a damn fine job of it.

 

I guess they did shut down the government as well so they haven't done nothing.

 

 

 

I mean the house has voted like 50 times to repeal Obamacare. That takes time and effort.

[carlfense]

I mean the house has voted like 50 times to repeal Obamacare. That takes time and effort.

Out there fighting for Americans. Real Americans.