It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Term limits, why are we waiting for permission?

page: 1
7

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   
I am a firm believer in term limits. Our founders did not intend for those who chose to serve to make a career out of it, but more like being in the military. Those who love their country enough to serve, got elected did a few terms and were sent home to be with their families and business as usual. Not the insanity we have today. I don't care what party you believe in, but if it is wrong for someone poor to live off of welfare for years, why do tax payers find it expectable for DC Hollywood to live off of public welfare and make a career out of it?

Citizens United will NEVER be repealed no matter how many of us want it gone. So why not just create a grass roots movement on state levels to institute term limits without having permission and just not vote for anyone who has served 2 terms? Why do we need a law to do what is already within our means as citizens to end?

Imagine being a lobbyist who instead of handing money to their favorite prostitutes have to deal with fresh new faces that they can no longer control but need to spend some time to get to know them?

Regardless of your political beliefs, if you truly want this country to bounce back, it's time to end the welfare of these career politicians. Too many to list and if I listed more than the other I would be screamed at for being biased.

Government Think Tanks, lobbyists, how many of these people are failed or retired politicians? Just because they leave office do you really think they no longer have a say in government policy? Watch the MSM? Ever notice who the so called "experts" are who they parade on the shows to tell us what is really happening?

Look at our presidential race. The establishment is freaking out that they are losing control! Let's hit em from the back when we vote for our next Congress by blind siding them by voting for anyone but those who have already done 1 or 2 terms? Do we need permission? Would it not freak out the Lobbyists?

We do not need permission nor a law for term limits! Blame the politicians if you want, but remember that the next time you vote for a politician who has already serve 2 or more terms! Don't think about the few good things and ribbon cutting ceremonies they came home for a photo op. Think of just why would anyone want to spend more than 8 or so years working in Washington DC......


edit on 11-3-2016 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963
The catch is that "not voting for them" would not be enough.
It would be necessary to positively vote for somebody else. And who?
The options are a) the other party, which you voted against for the previous two terms and b) an independent candidate, who may not be easy to push forward.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: seeker1963
The catch is that "not voting for them" would not be enough.
It would be necessary to positively vote for somebody else. And who?
The options are a) the other party, which you voted against for the previous two terms and b) an independent candidate, who may not be easy to push forward.



I get that, do we remain selfish to a party and then bitch about the end result or do we change the system in a legal manner that is already available to us with out a law allowing us to do it.

I refuse to vote for any one who has already served 2 terms. Period. Hate lobbyists? Drive them crazy and broke by destroying the good ole boy/gal system they have become accustomed to.

Look at the money that was spent "grooming" Rubio!

It isn't a career, and being they are controlling us, the biggest wrench we can as citizens throw into the gears of the machine is make it harder for them to operate as they have gotten used too.

Pipe dream I know. But when I hear all these people talking about empowering ourselves, this is simply the easiest way to shake up the system. This Presidential election has the whole damn greedy bunch of them losing control and what better way than to hit them hard by NOT voting for incumbents?

I could care less if Trump is elected. He has already done Irrefutable damage to the machine. Love em or hate em, he gave us a window to scare the machine even more. Imagine the horror when every incumbent is taken down?



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

"Why are we waiting?"

Apathy and ignorance.

S&F nice thread!
edit on 11-3-2016 by KawRider9 because: forgot beer



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Vote for anyone that hasn't served yet. That's the key. We've got to get Congress out of congress to change anything.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
Vote for anyone that hasn't served yet. That's the key. We've got to get Congress out of congress to change anything.




New blood!

Sorry, got hooked on the Vampire Diaries!



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
Vote for anyone that hasn't served yet. That's the key. We've got to get Congress out of congress to change anything.


I actually plan on running for Congress in 2 years now that I'm old enough to attempt it. I missed it this year due to only being 24 at the deadline to enter the race. So Robert Aderholt, you won't be running uncontested in 2018!



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Double post
edit on 11-3-2016 by Barzad because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Term limits have to include clauses such as not being able to be a lobbyist or sweetheart private deals after office... otherwise it encourages them to steal faster with no other repercussions.

Also, they will just pull a term in congress, then the senate, then run for governor, etc.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: seeker1963

Term limits have to include clauses such as not being able to be a lobbyist or sweetheart private deals after office... otherwise it encourages them to steal faster with no other repercussions.

Also, they will just pull a term in congress, then the senate, then run for governor, etc.



That's the way the system works now, because the Lobbyists no longer have to make cold calls? They know exactly who is willing to sell out the people?

Imagine the MONEY a lobbyist will have to spend in an unknown world and how nervous they would be if they got accused of "Bribing a Politician"!

I know it's hard to comprehend, but it is all about NEW BLOOD?



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barzad

originally posted by: amazing
Vote for anyone that hasn't served yet. That's the key. We've got to get Congress out of congress to change anything.


I actually plan on running for Congress in 2 years now that I'm old enough to attempt it. I missed it this year due to only being 24 at the deadline to enter the race. So Robert Aderholt, you won't be running uncontested in 2018!


Best of luck to you! I don't care if you and I see eye to eye, but represent the Constitution and people you represent. In that order.


Let us know on ATS as someone new how much money you need to acquire to just become a blip on the political radar?



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 06:47 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

How do you know what "our founders" wanted dealing with term limits?

Even then, their judgment should be in question.
Savages. You know, the people that were here before them. But they weren't people because well, you need to own NEGROES to be anybody in the Americas...

Yeah, great bunch of guys with swell ideas...

Term limits were their most utmost concern I'm sure.



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: the owlbear
a reply to: seeker1963

How do you know what "our founders" wanted dealing with term limits?

Even then, their judgment should be in question.
Savages. You know, the people that were here before them. But they weren't people because well, you need to own NEGROES to be anybody in the Americas...

Yeah, great bunch of guys with swell ideas...

Term limits were their most utmost concern I'm sure.


Besides that, do you have anything else to say about the meat and potato's of my post, or do you want it to be about where you and I disagree with our founders ideas?

How do you feel about term limits?
edit on 11-3-2016 by seeker1963 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: the owlbear
a reply to: seeker1963

How do you know what "our founders" wanted dealing with term limits?

Even then, their judgment should be in question.
Savages. You know, the people that were here before them. But they weren't people because well, you need to own NEGROES to be anybody in the Americas...

Yeah, great bunch of guys with swell ideas...

Term limits were their most utmost concern I'm sure.


Besides that, do you have anything else to say about the meat and potato's of my post, or do you want it to be about where you and I disagree with our founders ideas?

How do you feel about term limits?


Depends...

How much weight are we supposed to give to "committees" and chairs of committees all based on tenure in the house/senate? Change those rules first.
Now, it's done by senior ranking member...if you can change all of that. Allahu Akbar!
States that passed term limits shot themselves in the foot by way of representation back in the '90's. They really can't have any senior member of any committee.
Yay states rights!



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: the owlbear

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: the owlbear
a reply to: seeker1963

How do you know what "our founders" wanted dealing with term limits?

Even then, their judgment should be in question.
Savages. You know, the people that were here before them. But they weren't people because well, you need to own NEGROES to be anybody in the Americas...

Yeah, great bunch of guys with swell ideas...

Term limits were their most utmost concern I'm sure.


Besides that, do you have anything else to say about the meat and potato's of my post, or do you want it to be about where you and I disagree with our founders ideas?

How do you feel about term limits?


Depends...

How much weight are we supposed to give to "committees" and chairs of committees all based on tenure in the house/senate? Change those rules first.
Now, it's done by senior ranking member...if you can change all of that. Allahu Akbar!
States that passed term limits shot themselves in the foot by way of representation back in the '90's. They really can't have any senior member of any committee.
Yay states rights!



Now we are getting somewhere?

How many "Senior Members" would we have if we as voters chose to "let them go" after 2 terms of service?

The term Senior would no longer be needed because we took our government back?



posted on Mar, 11 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Barzad

originally posted by: amazing
Vote for anyone that hasn't served yet. That's the key. We've got to get Congress out of congress to change anything.


I actually plan on running for Congress in 2 years now that I'm old enough to attempt it. I missed it this year due to only being 24 at the deadline to enter the race. So Robert Aderholt, you won't be running uncontested in 2018!


Best of luck to you! I don't care if you and I see eye to eye, but represent the Constitution and people you represent. In that order.


Let us know on ATS as someone new how much money you need to acquire to just become a blip on the political radar?


I plan on representing the Constitution, not corporations. It's time for the people to have a representative who actually listens



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

Term limits, why are we waiting for permission.

sports coaches usually resign for the 'good of the team' but politicians hang on for as long as they and stuff the team. This proves its only about the money and post politics jobs if they don't get enough money.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

I completely agree.

--one additional reason I agree though that you didn't mention deals with age.

Not all but most older politicians are truly out-of-sync with the way humanity is quickly changing. I'm pretty sure about 3/4 of our senators are 55 or older, we know all of the Supreme Court is.

I'm not saying 55 is OLD, but at that point most people have their values and ideas carved in stone and will rarely waver. Which then, with no term limits, they simply get paid to sit there chained to that rock and accomplish little while the world keeps (d)evolving.



posted on Mar, 12 2016 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

I totally agree. Representatives shouldn't be allowed to make a career out of their political office. The problem is congress is given too much authority to control their own destiny. It's definitely a conflict of interest! They vote on their own raises, campaign financing, benefits, allowing lobbyists, and of course deciding on term limits. This should be decided directly by the people in which they represent and supposedly work for! Serving a political office should be temporary. Staying in office for a long period of time only makes them gain power and become too influential over fellow representatives.

It's a cushy, well paying job with a lot of perks. No wonder the majority of politicians make a career out of it. A lot of them are still in office into their 70's! That alone says a lot!




posted on Mar, 13 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963

I actually don't support term limits. I like the idea of politicians being dependent on keeping their jobs and needing to win elections, it lessens corruption. If someone could only come in for a couple of terms, it means they need to set themselves up to have a nice life when they get out of office and that inevitably means doing favors for people. If you think it's bad now (and it is), imagine if all the incumbents were out of the House every 2 or 4 years. Way more deals would be getting made.


Instead, what we have now is a system where a politician becomes dependent on keeping their seat, and that means they need to make their constituents happy, most of them do a very good job of that because when you poll people, the majority like their congressman even if they hate congress overall. Plus, it means we have a system where people can gain experience and figure out how to actually get things done. You don't entrust one of the most important functions in society to a group with no experience, that can never build any experience. Every time that has been tried in history, in any sector it has lead to disaster.



new topics

top topics



 
7

log in

join