Term limits

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Until maybe 5 minutes ago I was all for it. Then I saw this:


Rosa DeLauro reps an extremely Democrat district in CT. She has been in that seat since....1991. Before many of her voters were even born.

I don't find this vid super cringe - it's like children cussing: inappropriate, but still funny.

Anyway, let's say she gets term limited out; who will replace her?

That's right, another far Left Democrat.

Not only that, but voters have complete control over term limits. They can vote out the incumbent any time they want. I mean, the real fact is these people get so entrenched that they win their elections come hell or high water, but even if there is a limit on how long they can serve it's not like voters in those districts/cities/states are going to go, "Y'know, I'm tired of Marxist crazy and being insulted. I'ma vote for a conservative this time."

As we've seen in so SO many elections, Democrats in particular - who have spent 4+ years doing nothing but bitch about Democrat policies - will not only vote for another Democrat, they will go even FURTHER Left. Look at that kook in Chicago, and all the kooks in NYC, and that kook ya'll Marylanders put in the Governor seat.

CA has done nothing but bitch about Gavin Newsom and yet when they had the opportunity to recall him....they voted to keep him.

AOC has been a disaster but she will hold that seat until she runs for Senator; then she'll hold that seat for as long as she wants it. Her re-elections weren't even close, which is why I don't want to hear her whiny baby constituents bitching about her.

I mean, it doesn't really matter anyway because slimy politicians aren't going to enact legislation that removes them from power. "I vote to fire myself after a certain number of years!" :rolleyes:

So that's what I'm thinking about this morning....

The other thing I'm thinking about is how they were trying to get NE to change to winner take all electorals. IMO that is going the wrong way. What should happen is ALL states award electorals based on district. That's the only way the people who live in a state dominated by major metro areas can be represented and have their vote count. If you live in NY or MD or CA your state is red-red-red....except for a blob of blue where all the tards live. And yet that blob disenfranchises you to the point you might as well not even vote.

Democrats say they want all votes to count, but what they mean by that is they want all votes *for them* to count. Everyone else can piss off.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
One benefit of term limits you didn't mention was that it stops the crazy accumulation of power, so you don't end up with these folks like Nancy and Mitch.
 

Bobwhite

Well-Known Member
Until maybe 5 minutes ago I was all for it. Then I saw this:


Rosa DeLauro reps an extremely Democrat district in CT. She has been in that seat since....1991. Before many of her voters were even born.

I don't find this vid super cringe - it's like children cussing: inappropriate, but still funny.

Anyway, let's say she gets term limited out; who will replace her?

That's right, another far Left Democrat.

Not only that, but voters have complete control over term limits. They can vote out the incumbent any time they want. I mean, the real fact is these people get so entrenched that they win their elections come hell or high water, but even if there is a limit on how long they can serve it's not like voters in those districts/cities/states are going to go, "Y'know, I'm tired of Marxist crazy and being insulted. I'ma vote for a conservative this time."

As we've seen in so SO many elections, Democrats in particular - who have spent 4+ years doing nothing but bitch about Democrat policies - will not only vote for another Democrat, they will go even FURTHER Left. Look at that kook in Chicago, and all the kooks in NYC, and that kook ya'll Marylanders put in the Governor seat.

CA has done nothing but bitch about Gavin Newsom and yet when they had the opportunity to recall him....they voted to keep him.

AOC has been a disaster but she will hold that seat until she runs for Senator; then she'll hold that seat for as long as she wants it. Her re-elections weren't even close, which is why I don't want to hear her whiny baby constituents bitching about her.

I mean, it doesn't really matter anyway because slimy politicians aren't going to enact legislation that removes them from power. "I vote to fire myself after a certain number of years!" :rolleyes:

So that's what I'm thinking about this morning....

The other thing I'm thinking about is how they were trying to get NE to change to winner take all electorals. IMO that is going the wrong way. What should happen is ALL states award electorals based on district. That's the only way the people who live in a state dominated by major metro areas can be represented and have their vote count. If you live in NY or MD or CA your state is red-red-red....except for a blob of blue where all the tards live. And yet that blob disenfranchises you to the point you might as well not even vote.

Democrats say they want all votes to count, but what they mean by that is they want all votes *for them* to count. Everyone else can piss off.
Disagree. You can't vote someone out of office if you are in the minority. The only way we can get term limits is through a constitutional amendment and it would take way longer than I have years left.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
One benefit of term limits you didn't mention was that it stops the crazy accumulation of power, so you don't end up with these folks like Nancy and Mitch.

That's the one benefit I can think of. But I also think it's not so much the individual as the entity. As in Nancy is only powerful because of the Democrat machine behind her. If it weren't her, it would be someone else. Look how influential AOC became before she even took office.

It would go a long way if politicians could only take money from those in their state or district. As in, the only money AOC gets is what is donated directly from her constituents. Senators and Governors can only take money from donors in their state. And the RNC/DNC can only run generic "Vote (Party)" ads, etc, and not for specific candidates.

I'd like to see a breakdown of exactly where all this campaign money actually goes.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Disagree. You can't vote someone out of office if you are in the minority. The only way we can get term limits is through a constitutional amendment and it would take way longer than I have years left.

But the same tards who vote like sh*t for the incumbent will also vote like sh*t for the next crook.
 

LightRoasted

If I may ...
For your consideration ...

Until maybe 5 minutes ago I was all for it. Then I saw this:


Rosa DeLauro reps an extremely Democrat district in CT. She has been in that seat since....1991. Before many of her voters were even born.

I don't find this vid super cringe - it's like children cussing: inappropriate, but still funny.

Anyway, let's say she gets term limited out; who will replace her?

That's right, another far Left Democrat.

Not only that, but voters have complete control over term limits. They can vote out the incumbent any time they want. I mean, the real fact is these people get so entrenched that they win their elections come hell or high water, but even if there is a limit on how long they can serve it's not like voters in those districts/cities/states are going to go, "Y'know, I'm tired of Marxist crazy and being insulted. I'ma vote for a conservative this time."

As we've seen in so SO many elections, Democrats in particular - who have spent 4+ years doing nothing but bitch about Democrat policies - will not only vote for another Democrat, they will go even FURTHER Left. Look at that kook in Chicago, and all the kooks in NYC, and that kook ya'll Marylanders put in the Governor seat.

CA has done nothing but bitch about Gavin Newsom and yet when they had the opportunity to recall him....they voted to keep him.

AOC has been a disaster but she will hold that seat until she runs for Senator; then she'll hold that seat for as long as she wants it. Her re-elections weren't even close, which is why I don't want to hear her whiny baby constituents bitching about her.

I mean, it doesn't really matter anyway because slimy politicians aren't going to enact legislation that removes them from power. "I vote to fire myself after a certain number of years!" :rolleyes:

So that's what I'm thinking about this morning....

The other thing I'm thinking about is how they were trying to get NE to change to winner take all electorals. IMO that is going the wrong way. What should happen is ALL states award electorals based on district. That's the only way the people who live in a state dominated by major metro areas can be represented and have their vote count. If you live in NY or MD or CA your state is red-red-red....except for a blob of blue where all the tards live. And yet that blob disenfranchises you to the point you might as well not even vote.

Democrats say they want all votes to count, but what they mean by that is they want all votes *for them* to count. Everyone else can piss off.

Term limits wouldn't matter. Those in the shadows that actually control government, work on an extremely long timeline. If term limits where instituted, they would just groom other replacement candidates well before such terms ended for preparation of having their lackeys elected. Aka, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
 

Sneakers

Just sneakin' around....
It's only one. There will always be someone/something that doesn't quite fit the rule. Term limits would take out the far majority of those that need taking out.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Term limits would be great, but give this a thought.

After an election any unspent election funds are returned to the IRS.

Let the incumbent start out the same way as his opponent. Not sitting on a Million dollar political treasure chest.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Look how influential AOC became before she even took office.


IMHO

ONLY as part of the Squad and Justice Democrats .. her handler had to quit, he was caught playing with campaign funds
Nancy told he to sit down and shut up when she arrived thinking she was all that and a box of cookies

but more to the point she ONLY has power because of the Twitter MOB
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
If term limits where instituted, they would just groom other replacement candidates well before such terms ended for preparation of having their lackeys elected. Aka, "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".


Term limits for CONGRESSIONAL STAFF is needed .. when your congress critter leaves so do you, no new job ANYWHERE in Government
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Until maybe 5 minutes ago I was all for it. Then I saw this:


Rosa DeLauro reps an extremely Democrat district in CT. She has been in that seat since....1991. Before many of her voters were even born.

I don't find this vid super cringe - it's like children cussing: inappropriate, but still funny.

Anyway, let's say she gets term limited out; who will replace her?

That's right, another far Left Democrat.

Not only that, but voters have complete control over term limits. They can vote out the incumbent any time they want. I mean, the real fact is these people get so entrenched that they win their elections come hell or high water, but even if there is a limit on how long they can serve it's not like voters in those districts/cities/states are going to go, "Y'know, I'm tired of Marxist crazy and being insulted. I'ma vote for a conservative this time."

As we've seen in so SO many elections, Democrats in particular - who have spent 4+ years doing nothing but bitch about Democrat policies - will not only vote for another Democrat, they will go even FURTHER Left. Look at that kook in Chicago, and all the kooks in NYC, and that kook ya'll Marylanders put in the Governor seat.

CA has done nothing but bitch about Gavin Newsom and yet when they had the opportunity to recall him....they voted to keep him.

AOC has been a disaster but she will hold that seat until she runs for Senator; then she'll hold that seat for as long as she wants it. Her re-elections weren't even close, which is why I don't want to hear her whiny baby constituents bitching about her.

I mean, it doesn't really matter anyway because slimy politicians aren't going to enact legislation that removes them from power. "I vote to fire myself after a certain number of years!" :rolleyes:

So that's what I'm thinking about this morning....

The other thing I'm thinking about is how they were trying to get NE to change to winner take all electorals. IMO that is going the wrong way. What should happen is ALL states award electorals based on district. That's the only way the people who live in a state dominated by major metro areas can be represented and have their vote count. If you live in NY or MD or CA your state is red-red-red....except for a blob of blue where all the tards live. And yet that blob disenfranchises you to the point you might as well not even vote.

Democrats say they want all votes to count, but what they mean by that is they want all votes *for them* to count. Everyone else can piss off.
That is word for word Larry Gude’s response to me when I said I was for term limits.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
Term limits would be great, but give this a thought.

After an election any unspent election funds are returned to the IRS.

Let the incumbent start out the same way as his opponent. Not sitting on a Million dollar political treasure chest.
That sounds to me like it would just result in more hustling for campaign funds, meaning instead of only being beholden to the group(s) that got them elected the first time they will instead be pimping themselves out every election cycle.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
That sounds to me like it would just result in more hustling for campaign funds, meaning instead of only being beholden to the group(s) that got them elected the first time they will instead be pimping themselves out every election cycle.

Ah, and you just made the best argument for term limits. @glhs837 alluded to it but sometimes I need it spelled out. And then a ton of bricks dropped on me.

There's a joke about 'an honest politician is one who stays bought'. These money creeps would have to keep buying politicians because they'd have an expiration date. And paying off their relatives and cronies to create a money laundering network would be a waste because in x years those people would be irrelevant. Think of all Biden's relatives who've been on the grift all these years, and he's just the high profile one. Maxine Waters' daughter, Pelosi's daughter, there are a ton of worthless offspring and other kinfolk on the payroll with a percentage no doubt being kicked up to their elected official relative. With term limits Hunter Biden would have never been hired by Burisma because he'd be worthless.

I haven't worked it out completely in my mind. Crooks are creative and come up with ways to steal and scam that would have never occurred to me.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
That sounds to me like it would just result in more hustling for campaign funds, meaning instead of only being beholden to the group(s) that got them elected the first time they will instead be pimping themselves out every election cycle.
Clem they are pimping themselves out every election anyway.
Why should an incumbent start out with a head start of a campaign war chest.?
 

Ramp Guy

Well-Known Member
Term limits would be great, but give this a thought.

After an election any unspent election funds are returned to the IRS.

Let the incumbent start out the same way as his opponent. Not sitting on a Million dollar political treasure chest.
Good point but the IRS will just "piss it" away giving to some favorite government program like money to a NGO...

I rather see the money go directly to the national debt with no side special programs.
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
Good point but the IRS will just "piss it" away giving to some favorite government program like money to a NGO...

I rather see the money go directly to the national debt with no side special programs.
IRS isn't allowed to give money away, only the house can do that
 
Top