This isn’t the place to discuss this.

You should be looking for the sub called: Convention of States or just go to

https://www.conventionofstates.com

they want to limit terms for senators

There are two sides to term limits.

I have seen it said most often in the Donald.. term limits.

It is not an accident that Republicans like them.

Term limits rotate out elected officials, leaving corporate lobbyists as the veterans of DC. After Citizens United, term limits would be another huge strike against democracy.

I am aware that most of us do not like Bill Clinton, but imagine if he was allowed to run for a third term. He would have crushed George W. Bush. That would mean no massive expansion of middle east wars as per the PNAC agenda, and probably not even 9-11. Things would be very different.

But instead, the right of the people was taken away by the 22nd Amendment and we wound up with "The Decider."

reason to believe it was performed by the government.

As many of us know, this is the best description of 9-11. You read something into my comment that I did not say.

And which government did it? A mostly Republican government with a White House occupant installed by a 5-4 Supreme Court that ended the Florida vote count. Behind the scenes -- and most did not know it then -- was a cabal of warmongers called PNAC lusting for a "new Pearl Harbor" and three large scale wars, and even naming countries to attack. So, we probably agree here.

With that Republican plan in mind, it would be a huge leap to say that somehow a third Bill Clinton term would be the same. In fact, Bill Clinton was in office when a scheme to take down one of the Twin Towers was executed, and he did nothing like what PNAC would have done.

I'm not a liberal, and I'm guessing you are.

The words liberal and conservative have been so distorted in the past 20 years as to be rendered meaningless.

compromise .. while having someone within their own party running as well.

I like this idea, especially with the states themselves becoming so polarized that one party is often a shoe-in. This applies in both "red" and "blue" states. One major reason that there is so much corruption is because the national parties have set things up so that one party appears so far away from the other, that locally, elections are predetermined. This permits massive corruption in both parties whether it is in Chicago or Kansas.

Competition is needed. So, we probably agree here.

I suggest that in the most red and the most blue states, the parties split into local factions. Your idea is worth considering, but it immediately appears to be a logistical and regulatory nightmare of extreme complexity.

more new blood into politics,

My original point was to oppose this, and I do so adamantly. We don't want the lobbyists to be the long-term experts in Congress. All that new blood would be very quickly reliant upon both the advice and the money of the veteran lobbyists.

To analogize, consider the 'revolving door" of the 'deep state.' In the White House, many of the same veterans are used to run policies across administrations and across parties. In Congress, that role would be played by lobbyists. I hope this changes your view, because it is solid. :)

Unfortunately, to change government, we need to become active. Infiltrate the parties until we have enough power to overturn them from the inside. That's what Indivisible and Our Revolution is trying to, and that's what Tea Party attempted until it filled with Koch and Bradley money.

There are about 13 States that have already voted (agreed) to participate in a COS. this is pretty good momentum.

Never heard of that in my life. Why are they doing such a piss poor job of advertising themselves?

Because it is a slow process by a grassroots organization that doesn't have deep pockets. Plus, there is already a significant amount of negative press being generated from what they've accomplished so far (12 or 13 States have voted to participate- need about 33 States to begin the COS). Most of the negative articles have been misleading and from misinformed sources at best.

This Constitutionally Legal process is THE only way to get Congress under control and stop the damage they are doing to our Country. The founding fathers placed this Article (5) into the Constitution for just this reason. Please read about it and participate.

Yep, Article V - the only way it'll ever happen.

You mean the Koch brothers agenda? Better take a look.

http://billmoyers.com/story/kochs-to-rewrite-constitution/

Make Blue Hair Dye ILLEGAL!!!

Over 75? Years old? Mandatory Political Retirement would be a good first step.

Everyone but those in power want term limits.

Congress also has a record low approval rating, yet the majority get voted back in. My theory is because most people that pay attention to their representatives think, "congress sucks, but my guy is doing great". If everyone thinks this, obviously nothings ever going to change.

Ding Ding Ding. As long a a representative satisfies the needs of their immediate constituents (while being a shitty politician on a a national/global level), they will always get reelected This is why gerrymandering is such a big phenomenon.

Gerrymandering is such a big phenomenon because it makes elections cheaper and the people easier to control.

My Congressman represents me, not you. So he damn well better be satisfying my needs before he addresses your global concerns.

I don't support it. Suppose we find actual experts we trust. Be it on a major issue, or just as a local who actually looks out for his constituents. What happens when they reach their term limits? We throw them out, even though we like them. Who picks the replacement candidates? The parties. We get no choice but a stooge. And if that expert had amassed influence nationally, what fills that void? Special interest money. The new term limit rules institutionalize the revolving door that congressmen do corporate bidding for a few years on the citizens' dime, then get a cushy K Street job, to be replaced on the ballot by the guy whose job they are taking, etc.

I just don't agree that having been in power for 20 or 30 years isn't good for anyone. Without someone that has amassed 20 or 30 years of power to fight against special interest influence, we don't stand a chance. Youth and inexperience just makes new blood vulnerable to being pushed around by the lobbyists and party hacks.

You seem to be saying replacing everybody in Congress wholesale is going to mean that nobody there is bought and paid for, and that's just as ignorant. We'd be entirely at the mercy of the parties for the selection of replacements. The parties, those private institutions that we have no legal standing to challenge.

I absolutely agree that the lobbying industry is the problem. Where we are disagreeing is that implementing term limits before we do anything about that problem is going to bring us closer to fixing it. I think if we do that, we are falling into a trap of giving away what little power we have left just because we want to change something, anything. The lobbyists will exploit the new term limit quicker than we can take advantage of them to destroy lobbyist influence. Because they are the lawyers writing the rules. And they have the access to the media, to tell the story of what's happening.

And they are the only ones with the power to change it which they clearly won't ever do just as they'll never surrender the right to set their own salaries and perks instead of having them subjected to public approval through a periodic referendum process.

Some in power want it too:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/07/rand_paul_calls_for_term_limits_for_congress_balanced_budget_amendment.html

I think the best way to do it - (AND YES I AM VERY SERIOUS - WE COULD START IT RIGHT HERE TONIGHT)

The best best to do it - is to vote for the nonincumbent -- I mean I don't care who is running for senate/house etc - you vote for the guy who is new and never ever never ever vote for the candidate who is an incumbent -

If we could just convince everyone to do this without regard to political affiliation - I don't care about republican democrat - I just want to vote for the new/younger person. If we did this 3-4 elections in a row (and spread the word via every means possible) then we could make a positive change - quickly.

Instead of voting REP or DEM - vote NIP - (non-incumbent party)

The slogan writes itself!

Let's NIP this corruption in the bud right here!

The French had some colorful ideas on how to approach this.

These guys have it all figured out in a bipartisan constitutionally friendly manner https://anticorruptionact.org/

Aren't they all. I love term limits too, I would be happy to vote for them.

I'll just say that Clinton won the popular vote despite rigging the election and being mired in more corruption than any candidate we've known in history. If you add to that and say that Sanders would have won if she hadn't rigged it, I don't think anyone wants to get the blue haired money out of power.

In fact, the main liberal talking point about why Trump was bad was that he was inexperienced and didn't know anything about politics.

But now that he's in, he's just another establishment figurehead.

This us vs them mentality allows factions to spin a narrative as they desire, indifferent to truth or reason.

But at the end of the day, nobody is going to vote for a common sense baker who makes 30 grand a year.

It's all based on a cult of personality. Which is why Trump and Obama both got elected. For Obama, the timing was right to prove we're not racist, so policies aside he was a shoe in. For Trump, the timing was right after 8 years of democratic policies and sjwism.

The short answer is people are unbelievably stupid AND uneducated. It's more important to have a side and a belief than it is to have a reason and purpose.

It's like the people who complain about capitalism and wealth disparity then get on Amazon and buy their new thing for 40% off with 2 day shipping with their gmail account on their Windows PC/iPhone. Or they go to wal mart.

"Shut up! You don't have the microphone!" -- Bernie Sanders, to a protester

All choices turned my stomach. Sanders wasn't the least of them, either.

They will just get another lemming in office. They have all the money in the world and can make anyone look electable. By they I mean the DNC, GOP, lobbyist and their bosses

At some level, term limits is an admission of failure of democracy.

More important are counting votes (e.g. either open non-secret ballot or cryptographically secure publicly-verifiable ballots) and a free press (e.g. declare YouTube a monopoly and force it to give equal time).

This is something Trump and Ted Cruz have both strongly mentioned they want to happen. I think getting some leadership from them during the end of his term perhaps would be the best chance. If they do it now, they risk all the career politicians trying to sabotage their agenda (many are already doing this).

Count me in!

It wouldnt even be an issue if our elections werent rigged

Yes.. but if our votes worked we would have reps who serve the people so no blue hairs.. term limits are a band aid for the symptom of reps who dont rep

Constitutional convention of the States. Making it an amendment is the only way; those we want to limit will never legislate limits on their own power.

A noble cause, but the elites will just find new puppets. The president has term limits, after all.

Term limits mean more inexperienced congressmen which would lead to more lobbyists doing their job for them. All the politicians on our side have been in for a long time.

Term limits would be good depending on how long it is.

Life long seat fillers are a problem, however we don't want people go for these impactful governmental positions just to put it on their resume and do nothing for 2-6 years either.

It needs to be long enough to promote change but short enough to prevent the stagnant position the country is in, with geriatrics trying to lead the country to the future with their flip phones and Netscape email accounts.

Or....people can actual educated votes instead of emotional ones.

term limits on lobbyists first.

This in conjunction with banning lobbyists and public financing of elections and we have a deal.

Communism: the nonpartisan idea...

I simply don't have faith in democracy. As an adult, I recognize that much of what my younger self believed was based on naivety and I am aware that there are too many people with differing opinions for democracy to ever work for everyone.

I propose that an elite group of individuals secretly take control of the world and guide it subversively using bribery, blackmail and other forms of coercion while, at the same time, convincing the masses that their votes are the determinate force in the world.

False flag attacks, led by the deep state, are determined to be necessary and serve to increase the overt power of the deep state so that the requisite counter-measures can be put in place prior to an organic and unplanned attack or revolt that would eventually occur on it's own.

Now, what would be super awesome is if this elite group of people were drunk with power and obsessed with military might and devolved of any ethics or system of moral guidance. Additionally, if they would meet in secret, dress in robes and engage in dark ceremonies and rituals while keeping their true identities masked- even from each other. Ideally, they would commit crimes against humanity as they seek to enslave the world into a system from which it cannot escape. Finally, they would reveal the fact that their true form was reptilian.

Even with term limits, there is nothing to stop corporations from "persuading" new blood. The best thing is to ban corporation donations for legislators and send those caught to the gulag.

The biggest problem with term limits is that it leaves a void of knowledge and experience.
Despite what many think of Biden (goofy, creepy, etc.) and McCain (old, flaky, etc), it is an undeniable fact that they a wealth of experience and knowledge around foreign policy. And, in many ways, our government depends on this knowledge and experience to guide decision making.
If you limit reps to three terms, that institutional memory is decreased. You don't have incredibly knowledgeable people serving in these positions. We've actually seen symptoms of this from the Tea Party wave, wherein Republicans in the House actually complained about how newer members had no idea what was going on and lacked understanding of how to do anything.

I didn't say there would be a void, but there would be a shortage of experience for sure. There's something to be said for having politicians with long-standing amicable relationships with foreign government representatives.
I'm not sure I'm opposed to the idea itself, but the problems that it could cause give me pause. There are much better ways to fix the problems in the system than by removing institutional memory and experience. Getting rid of lobbyists and banning corporate money entirely would be a much bigger/better step than term limits imo. Those tow are the biggest issues we have at this time in my perspective. If campaigns could only get donations from individual citizens and a federal fund, I'd be much happier. If corporations could not write bills, I'd be much happier.
You fix the money and term limits aren't an issue.

There should absolutely be a "no" option when voting. It is gross how many people run uncontested, and there should be a way to keep someone out of office. Nevada, for instance, has a "None of the Above" option on all ballots in the state. It is, however, a protest vote and the win still goes to the candidate with the most votes. Unfortunately, what you're proposing has an odd issue wherein it doesn't explain what happens if there is no opposition. You can't force someone to run an opposition campaign. I don't have an answer to that. I wish I did.
I would really like to see a massive change in how representation occurs in this country. I want to see a massive reapportionment of our government occur. During the Continental Congress there was a large debate about the size of congressional districts. They (the only time GW voiced an opinion) decided that the optimum size of a congressional district was 30,000 citizens per representative. The House was supposed to be reapportioned every 10 years. That stopped in 1929. I dunno what the ideal size is, but it isn't the average of one representative for every 700,000 (average across districts). I would love to see the size of the house increased and the average size of a district be closer to 30k.
I don't know if that would change everything, but it would make each citizen have more equal power and make more direct representation.

Term limits just strengthen the shadow government.

Imagine you work for a company. You have a boss, and he has a boss.

Your boss remains forever, but his boss gets replaced every 4 years - who becomes the real person who knows everything and is in control?

The same thing happens with politicians - a politician who is replaced every X years becomes just a figurehead for the special interests/party. A politician who does NOT get termed out has at least a chance of doing something on his own (even if they rarely do).

Term limits are a panacea that replace candidates with parities, but make people think they're enacting something.

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2940

Agreed.

And they are the only ones with the power to change it which they clearly won't ever do just as they'll never surrender the right to set their own salaries and perks instead of having them subjected to public approval through a periodic referendum process.

You mean the Koch brothers agenda? Better take a look.

http://billmoyers.com/story/kochs-to-rewrite-constitution/

Some in power want it too:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/07/rand_paul_calls_for_term_limits_for_congress_balanced_budget_amendment.html