I wanted to vote every single member of Congress out of office in November, but they didn't give me that option. I did vote against the incumbents, even though in the past I've been almost party line Republican in my votes. It's high time we started fresh.WDRacing wrote:I hate the blame game. Our Gov as a whole, that means both POS parties, failed. Utterly and totally failed...
Absolutely. It can be kept reasonably high to avoid "continuous freshman" problem. But, no more than four terms or 10 years, whichever comes first.audtatious wrote:There should be term limitations for Senate/House.
Great idea!!themadscientist wrote:How about make it like jury duty.Go to the mailbox, "crap, I have to be a senator for a year"!
Kinda falls along the lines of "if the people are too stupid to elect the right person, then they deserve what they get" theory?themadscientist wrote:I would not be for term limits. If the constituency truly wanted to retain a legislator, they should not be denied that right.
He was chosen by 'The One', surely his intellect is so great we can't even comprehend it.bobotech wrote:How the hell did anyone vote FOR Barney Frank? I swear that I don't know of anyone dumber than him.
Ugh.
For most purposes, I agree with you.audtatious wrote:80% of those in office needs to leave. There should be term limitations for Senate/House. Having people in for 50-bazillion years is bullcrap
Perhaps ... but sometimes, they get stuck in the same old school thinking that got them nowhere before.HashiriyaS14 wrote:For foreign policy and a precious few domestic issues, I think there is some value to "career" legislators who have seen and done it all.
Also absolutely true. Both experience and inexperience have their inherent upsides and downsides. My preference for either one is entirely situational, I don't have any sort of governing ideology about it.szhosain wrote:
Perhaps ... but sometimes, they get stuck in the same old school thinking that got them nowhere before.
Z