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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Term Limits: Can He Really Get it Done?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Greetings ATS Community,
I wanted to bring up the topic of congressional term limits just to see what folks might think.

Trump proposed term limits toward the end of his campaign (I believe) as a part of his 'drain the swamp' approach to reform in Washington.

In my opinion, term limits are a great idea because they're an excellent check on cronyism and the good old boy club.
If politicians know they have a finite amount of time to actually get something meaningful done for their constituents (I know, novel idea right?), maybe they'll do more than just vote the election cycle and bow to party-line pressure.
Moreover, it limits the amount of time they can squat in their pet committees and pedal influence to the PACs and big-money special interests that feed the corruption.
Finally, term limits would ensure a steady stream of fresh faces and ideas in congress, which might have the nice effect of dialing back the hyperpartisanship that seems to keep them in a constant state of collective constipation.

However, if term limits are indeed a part of the 'drain the swamp' strategy, the current makeup of congress would suggest there are a lot of politicians from his own party presently basking in the warm slime of those dank waters. Something tells me they aren't going to like the notion of being part of the drainage.

Indeed, one of the weasely faces of the establishment himself, Mitch McConnell, mentioned just yesterday that term limits are a "nonstarter."

Historically, the establishment loathes the idea. In Idaho, one of the reddest states in the union, the people passed congressional terms limits in a citizens ballot initiative. But the Republican good old boy club still found a way to undo it. The voice of the people was completely ignored and summarily dismissed by the public 'servants' who are supposed to represent their interests. Go figure.

SO, what do you think:
Are term limits a good idea?
Would term limits help 'drain the swamp'?
Will the GOP even consider the notion?
If not, does that represent the first defeat of the Trump agenda and everything he needs to make good on for the people he promised it to?




posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Term limits would do wonders to eliminate cronyism and corruption. I don't think our founders intended for professional politicians. There is a reason that people spend millions of dollars to get a job that pays $170k and it ain't because they just "want to make a difference."

I think congress should be limited to three terms. The senate two terms.

However, I think it will be difficult to get sitting politicians to vote themselves out of a job.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Terms for politicians should be 4 to 6 years and only 1 term no re election. If anybody can get that through that would make any county great.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
It seems EXTREMELY unlikely, unfortunately.

I do believe that the ones who would vote for such term limits are those who would be affected by it. I'm not sure all those lifetime politicians in the safe red and blue seats would want to give up their lifetime job, paid for by the American Taxpayer.
edit on -060002pm11kpm by Ohanka because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

We can only hope he can get it done.

He's got a lot of cleaning up to do, it's gonna take some time but it can be done.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
They will never vote themselves out of a job. They will only vote themselves more money. There was one congressman who's argument to term limits were "We already have term limits in congress. It's called the election. If the people didnt want us here they wouldnt vote for us." Forgot who said that. Im sure someone can look it up just im tired.

But when they are the only republican or democratic choice year after year. What choice do we really have?

Its a great idea and it would do wonders for our country but they would never allow it.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

You are correct - they will never agree to this. Bernie Sanders knew it too, but he had a plan. That plan was to bring new blood in. He had his eye on local state elections and he would send his followers emails letting them know which candidates were honest like he was.

Trump doesn't have a clue.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:42 PM
link   
This is one of the few things that Trump said that I agreed with. I believe among the people, there is bipartisan support for this. However, it's not something that's likely to happen as you basically pointed out yourself:


Indeed, one of the weasely faces of the establishment himself, Mitch McConnell, mentioned just yesterday that term limits are a "nonstarter."


There won't be any term limits. I hate to break it to folks but there won't be any draining of the swamp either. That was a campaign slogan. Not an actual thing. Only the people can "drain the swamp" in terms of Congress and of course President-elect Trump is unlikely to appoint cabinent members from outside of the establishment either.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
How would term limits be approached? My thinking is there might have to be a constitutional amendment OR it's in the hands of the individual States. How are the old cronies supposed to get their gubamint retirement pensions if they have term limits less than the required length of service for lifetime medical care and other benefits?

My thinking is that term limits are a great idea, but that it's a pragmatic near impossibility.

Besides, it doesn't REALLY solve the problem when the politicians go straight to lobbyist jobs.

As an interim measure, just change the law to require a TEN YEAR break between congress and a lobbying job, with a nice 20 year sentence for not following the law.


I believe the more permanent and better solution is to outlaw paid lobbyists completely, make the penalty life in the pen or worse. Maybe re-consider the original 13th amendment and just outlaw lawyers from government service & citizenship. That'll really drain the swamp.

ganjoa



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

I tend to agree with you antediluvian. It's one of the only things Trump said that I agree with, but it's not likely to happen. Which is really too bad because it would show the American people that our so-called leaders actually care about doing the right thing for the country.

And, yes, sadly I suspect the swamp will remain--bugs, stench, and all.
Asking the denizens of the swamp to drain it is something akin to asking a turd to flush itself.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ganjoa

It's the one issue I hope he forces down everyone's throat. How do you get that type of legislation through congress and the senate? I'm 100% for term limits and I can't imagine anyone arguing against it that isn't a politician.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gandalf77

It will be an interesting 4 years! 'Hope positive changes are on the horizon for us all.

I dont think any President has authority to force terms. I do see a lot of people...especially in other countries watching us...think that the President can force/do all kinds of things.

In almost every instance, he will have to go through all the Senators and Congressman, a majority are attorneys and lawyers and...Initiatives and future voting on it...and through the laws of our country.

There was a guy sitting on his porch with his lunch waiting to go to work any second...because he was told Trump will make more jobs. So there he sits. These things would take years...or at least one (1).

Things like terms...probably a great idea...would take a mountain of legislation by the very people who are directly affected by it. And it wouldnt be next month, in 6 months, or by next year.

He will be our standing President...not Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini. He has power...but not absolute power.

A great idea none the less....




posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ganjoa

Good points. I hadn't thought about it that way.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Why should Congress be allowed to determine their own term limits, or lack thereof?

That's like letting the President determine Presidential term limits.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I completely agree with what Edumakated has written. I do not know how we could even begin to get that feat accomplished. It might even take a Constitutional Convention to get that idea accomplished.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Yes, there should be term limits and no, they will never, ever vote it in. Too much of a cushy job with big pay and benefits plus side income.

On another note, there should also be term limits for the Supreme Court. I understand the argument as to why there isn't, but it puts way too much power and money in the hands of a select few with no accountability. That is never a good thing.



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 05:39 PM
link   
He definitely won't keep this promise. The GOP has already said that it's their mandate now, not Trump's. People seem to forget that Congress has the power in this respect. The GOP platform has no interest in giving up their positions of power.

Trump supporters were totally had. God damn you could sell America a broken vaccuum cleaner and she'd still buy the aftermarket warranty. Rubes.
edit on 10-11-2016 by BrokedownChevy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
If only 20,000 marched on the Capitol, with their Second Amendments in hand, you could demand any damn thing you want and the politicians would say, 'Yes Sir, we can do that for you.'

You have the power but you whine about all of the little things in your way without seeing the big picture.

P



posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

So you're in favor of the ammo box vs. the ballot box?





posted on Nov, 10 2016 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gandalf77
a reply to: pheonix358

So you're in favor of the ammo box vs. the ballot box?




No! No! No!

Why can you only see the two extremes!

You turn up, real peaceful like, and you tell them what they are going to do.

The guns do not have to be blazing. Just have to be in sight so everyone understands the situation.

Your chant should be, 'We will decide your term limits.'

You do not need violence.

I can tell you now, it would be the most peaceful demonstration with the Police smiling and waving.

P







 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join