Texas Tea said:

---

He's brought it up multiple times in the past:

With DeSantis in 2017

Again in 2021


Unfortunately, this effort will suffer the same fate as his other attempts. For the life of me, I can't understand why this doesn't gain traction with the electorate on both sides. I understand why the career politicians won't support it...can't afford to give up the gravy train.

---

Agree with you.

aggie93 said:

---

tysker said:

---

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office

---

You greatly underestimate the amount of things that incumbents have done to protect themselves and make it incredibly difficult to remove them. A huge percentage of the House and Senate are in Safe Districts or States where it is almost impossible for them to lose barring a major screw up or a unicorn candidate.

---

By incumbents, you mean political parties. Do you really think term limits will change the duopoly of power in politics? https://freakonomics.com/podcast/americas-hidden-duopoly-2/

I would argue giving the people more power and choice through mechanisms like ranked-choice voting helps alleviate many of your concerns, than arbitrary term limits.

Science Denier said:

---

Daily Caller

Quote:

---

EXCLUSIVE: Ted Cruz Introduces Legislation To Impose Term Limits For Congress

---

Why do this? It's got zero chance at a constitutional amendment. There is a better chance that Shila Jackson Lee becomes a Republican than this passing 2/3'rds both House and Senate.

Is it just grand standing? Is he at risk from losing his seat next election? Does he think there will be real conversation about this? I've not seen any major network carrying this, and I've not seen any major publication carrying it either.

---

You answered the question already.

I like Cruz and wish we had more politicians like him....but one of his faults is that he loves to propose things like this when he knows that it has 0% chance of passing. It's a no brainer - he can campaign on the fact that he has proposed things like this but also knows he is safe from actually having to do do anything about it.

He's not alone or the creator of proposals like this. Just one in a long line of politicians who talke a great game and back part of it up, but not all of it.

Kansas Kid said:

---

tysker said:

---

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office

---

While there in theory is a way, being an incumbent gives someone a massive advantage in terms of fund raising, name recognition, and using the governments own money to help buy the next election through crap like earmarks and handouts.

You can't honestly tell me that over 90% of house reps win re-election every 2 years because they are the most qualified person in their district.

---

Are you certain term limits will change this? Incumbents win re-election because they are the most qualified person to win the election. In our system, it's not about statesmanship or legislative ability; it's about winning elections. Term limits don't change this fact. I would argue it makes the issue of finding the most 'winnable' candidate even more necessary.

tysker said:

---

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office

---

Well, when the other idiots want them, i.e. Waters, SJL, Pelosi, et all, it doesn't work. How do you think these morons have stayed in office for 20, 30 and 40 years?

tysker said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

tysker said:

---

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office

---

You greatly underestimate the amount of things that incumbents have done to protect themselves and make it incredibly difficult to remove them. A huge percentage of the House and Senate are in Safe Districts or States where it is almost impossible for them to lose barring a major screw up or a unicorn candidate.

---

By incumbents, you mean political parties. Do you really think term limits will change the duopoly of power in politics? https://freakonomics.com/podcast/americas-hidden-duopoly-2/

I would argue giving the people more power and choice through mechanisms like ranked-choice voting helps alleviate many of your concerns, than arbitrary term limits.

---

No.

Because nothing says "elected by the people" like the 3rd candidate for everybody being the guy that manages to eek out a victory.

Ranked choice is a great way to get the worst candidates that nobody wants in office. Hard pass.

Those who control the swamp creatures will blackmail and remove funding from anyone who get on board with this idea. It makes maintaining control much more complicated and expensive.

annie88 said:

---

tysker said:

---

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office

---

Well, when the other idiots want them, i.e. Waters, SJL, Pelosi, et all, it doesn't work. How do you think these morons have stayed in office for 20, 30 and 40 years?

---

The solution is to roll in another group of morons every 10 or 15 years than 20 and 30? Idiocracy

tysker said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

tysker said:

---

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office

---

While there in theory is a way, being an incumbent gives someone a massive advantage in terms of fund raising, name recognition, and using the governments own money to help buy the next election through crap like earmarks and handouts.

You can't honestly tell me that over 90% of house reps win re-election every 2 years because they are the most qualified person in their district.

---

Are you certain term limits will change this? Incumbents win re-election because they are the most qualified person to win the election. In our system, it's not about statesmanship or legislative ability; it's about winning elections. Term limits don't change this fact. I would argue it makes the issue of finding the most 'winnable' candidate even more necessary.

---

Incumbents win elections because by in large, the voting populace is lazy and stupid and will readily vote for somebody because they recognize their name, not because they are the most qualified candidate for anything at all.

Repeal the 17th, remove any association with party from the ballots and force people to actually half ass do some research on the candidates before they vote.

tysker said:

---

annie88 said:

---

tysker said:

---

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office

---

Well, when the other idiots want them, i.e. Waters, SJL, Pelosi, et all, it doesn't work. How do you think these morons have stayed in office for 20, 30 and 40 years?

---

The solution is to roll in another group of morons every 10 or 15 years than 20 and 30? Idiocracy

---

At least it's a start, the less time they're there the better. But I think it should even be less than that.

Yes, 10 is better than 40.

tysker said:

---

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office

---

Imagine being against term limits.

I was for this but changed my mind. It'll just make the consultants more powerful. They aren't going away and they really are really the ones that run things. The politician is just the face.

I think the only way this could potentially happen is if all current members of Congress are grandfathered in. It will take a couple generations to get there but I don't see it happening any other way.

Will term limits change everything - no, but it's a huge step in the right direction. There needs to be an overall culture change in Congress making it a short term service to your country and not a career where you get rich on the side gigs while you are serving.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So he's not going to seek reelection in 2024?

---

Mind-numbing.

tysker said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

tysker said:

---

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office

---

You greatly underestimate the amount of things that incumbents have done to protect themselves and make it incredibly difficult to remove them. A huge percentage of the House and Senate are in Safe Districts or States where it is almost impossible for them to lose barring a major screw up or a unicorn candidate.

---

By incumbents, you mean political parties. Do you really think term limits will change the duopoly of power in politics? https://freakonomics.com/podcast/americas-hidden-duopoly-2/

I would argue giving the people more power and choice through mechanisms like ranked-choice voting helps alleviate many of your concerns, than arbitrary term limits.

---

Ranked choice voting is easily manipulated, just look at how it got Murkowski elected when she got fewer votes. It's wrong on so many levels as well. Runoffs are fine, ranked choice is terrible.

Fixing the 2 Party system is a different issue but it really isn't fixable under our form of government.

Term limits at least make it much more difficult for an individual to gain so much power because they can't stay in office forever. Term limits would also force a change with how the House and Senate run which is heavily based on seniority. For instance a guy like Ted Cruz is just now starting to have some power after a decade but he still has never Chaired or been Ranking Member of a Committee. The Committee that always has the most seniority btw? Appropriations. Shelby finally retired this year at 88 and it took him 31 years to become Chair (started in '87). Leahy on the Dem side also retired after 48 years(started in '75) in the Senate and it took him 46 to Chair Appropriations. That's the Committee that has the largest impact on spending. Neither of those guys had a significant challenger in elections going back decades.

On the House side you have Kay Granger as a relative newbie who just got the Appropriations gavel, she was first elected in '97 which is still well before a lot of folks on this Board were born.

schmellba99 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

tysker said:

---

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office

---

While there in theory is a way, being an incumbent gives someone a massive advantage in terms of fund raising, name recognition, and using the governments own money to help buy the next election through crap like earmarks and handouts.

You can't honestly tell me that over 90% of house reps win re-election every 2 years because they are the most qualified person in their district.

---

Are you certain term limits will change this? Incumbents win re-election because they are the most qualified person to win the election. In our system, it's not about statesmanship or legislative ability; it's about winning elections. Term limits don't change this fact. I would argue it makes the issue of finding the most 'winnable' candidate even more necessary.

---

Incumbents win elections because by in large, the voting populace is lazy and stupid and will readily vote for somebody because they recognize their name, not because they are the most qualified candidate for anything at all.

Repeal the 17th, remove any association with party from the ballots and force people to actually half ass do some research on the candidates before they vote.

---

They win because they are the most qualified at winning the election. Will term limits change the laziness and stupidity of the voting public? If the voting public is a dumb and lazy as you suggest wouldn't ranked-choice voting help to elect the person less desired by the dumb and lazy populace?

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

tysker said:

---

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office

---

Imagine being against term limits.

---

I'm not against them, but I don't think they'll work to solve the problems many have with the current system.

How about a more robust impeachment system? Impeach all the elected official that can be shown to be in violation of their oath of office. Keep the good ones, and kick out the bad ones

So yall are going to crush me for asking this, but Cruz presents this Amendment. Who votes on it first?


ETA: My guts tells me the Senate first and if passed then the House, but there is that thought that it would have to start in the House.

Quote:

---

Term limits at least make it much more difficult for an individual to gain so much power because they can't stay in office forever. Term limits would also force a change with how the House and Senate run which is heavily based on seniority.

---

You just shifted power away from the people and to the lobbyists, parties, and swampers that have institutional knowledge, money, and plenty of power to provide officials when their term is over. How is that any better for the public?

IndividualFreedom said:

---

So yall are going to crush me for asking this, but Cruz presents this Amendment. Who votes on it first?


ETA: My guts tells me the Senate first and if passed then the House, but there is that thought that it would have to start in the House.

---

You are thinking of bills to raise revenue. Those start in the house

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

So he's not going to seek reelection in 2024?

---

If it meant this passing I believe he'd be fine with that. Cruz was wealthy before congress and is still wealthy. It's not like he needs it. He'd likely become a tv guy as some conservative analyst when he wants to and move on.

tysker said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

tysker said:

---

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office

---

You greatly underestimate the amount of things that incumbents have done to protect themselves and make it incredibly difficult to remove them. A huge percentage of the House and Senate are in Safe Districts or States where it is almost impossible for them to lose barring a major screw up or a unicorn candidate.

---

By incumbents, you mean political parties. Do you really think term limits will change the duopoly of power in politics? https://freakonomics.com/podcast/americas-hidden-duopoly-2/

I would argue giving the people more power and choice through mechanisms like ranked-choice voting helps alleviate many of your concerns, than arbitrary term limits.

---

Ranked choice is only out there so the whacko's have more control. A normal 1/2 would be the top two most popular candidates. Whacko's vote either the #1 or #2 last on their ballot.

When you can't win a vote, devise a scheme to allow folks to dilute the voting.

Giving someone essentially two votes is never a good idea.

Quote:

---

By incumbents, you mean political parties. Do you really think term limits will change the duopoly of power in politics?

---

100% I do. It greatly increases the odds that the candidate/party can lose the election, or a different type of candidate gets nominated in the primaries. Even if the same party continues to win a particular seat, every person is different, has a different background/network, and that's a substantial change over time in the macro sense.

Quote:

---

You just shifted people away from the people and to the lobbyists, parties, and swampers that have institutional knowledge, money, and plenty of power to provide officials when their term is over. How is that any better for the public?

---

You dont refuse to take a step in the right direction, because it's not three steps in the right direction. Solve the issue one step at a time.

tysker said:

---

Some Junkie Cosmonaut said:

---

tysker said:

---

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office

---

Imagine being against term limits.

---

I'm not against them, but I don't think they'll work to solve the problems many have with the current system.

How about a more robust impeachment system? Impeach all the elected official that can be shown to be in violation of their oath of office. Keep the good ones, and kick out the bad ones

---

How? What would that look like? POTUS is corrupted beyond recognition, look at Swalwell's committee assignments, Feinstein's committee assignments, Schiff's committee assignments, etc.

It's an absolute joke. Complete clown world.

Incrementalism. It's about time the R's started playing this game. The D's have become masters of it. Say something you know has no chance to pass currently, or even something absurd like the Green New Deal.
Create the discussion. Keep circulating the discussion until people become numb to it, then get a little bit, of the bigger proposal passed as legislation. Over time (years) you have your original plan totally in place.

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Term limits at least make it much more difficult for an individual to gain so much power because they can't stay in office forever. Term limits would also force a change with how the House and Senate run which is heavily based on seniority.

---

You just shifted power away from the people and to the lobbyists, parties, and swampers that have institutional knowledge, money, and plenty of power to provide officials when their term is over. How is that any better for the public?

---

Way to fix that is a cooling off law where you can't work as a lobbyist for x years. That said the issue exists with current officials as well just in more creative ways. Don't be naive.

Even if it is nothing more than grandstanding, as mentioned already it has to start somewhere plus this is a good way to make them all take a stand, yea or nay.

Get it on the record. I thought starting a conversation was good?

tysker said:

---

schmellba99 said:

---

tysker said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

tysker said:

---

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office

---

While there in theory is a way, being an incumbent gives someone a massive advantage in terms of fund raising, name recognition, and using the governments own money to help buy the next election through crap like earmarks and handouts.

You can't honestly tell me that over 90% of house reps win re-election every 2 years because they are the most qualified person in their district.

---

Are you certain term limits will change this? Incumbents win re-election because they are the most qualified person to win the election. In our system, it's not about statesmanship or legislative ability; it's about winning elections. Term limits don't change this fact. I would argue it makes the issue of finding the most 'winnable' candidate even more necessary.

---

Incumbents win elections because by in large, the voting populace is lazy and stupid and will readily vote for somebody because they recognize their name, not because they are the most qualified candidate for anything at all.

Repeal the 17th, remove any association with party from the ballots and force people to actually half ass do some research on the candidates before they vote.

---

They win because they are the most qualified at winning the election. Will term limits change the laziness and stupidity of the voting public? If the voting public is a dumb and lazy as you suggest wouldn't ranked-choice voting help to elect the person less desired by the dumb and lazy populace?

---

They win because, like I said, the populace is lazy and stupid and vote for name recognition first and foremost regardless of performance in office.

D's are militant in voting D no matter how brain dead the candidate is, see this year's election in Pennsylvania for a great example - they literally voted in a guy that can't speak and is incoherent most of the time because he had a D next to his name.

Ranked choice is a sht show and it is how people like Murkowski stay in office - nobody actually voted for her as their first choice, she just got enough 2nd or 3rd choice votes that she was able to stay in office.

Tom Doniphon said:

---

The Cruz haters will still cling to, "he hasn't done anything," despite him being the most intelligent and conservative member of either house.

---

While I agree, that isn't quite the claim it should be. Cruz is very intelligent, but there are a lot of dim bulbs in DC, so saying he's the most intelligent is like being the tallest midget.

"Oh, you only fight the fights you can win? You fight the fights that need fighting!"

-A.J. MacInerney, Chief of Staff in the movie, "The American President"

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Get it on the record. I thought starting a conversation was good?

---

You realize a vote won't ever happen. Even if Republicans win the House, Senate and POTUS, that vote won't ever happen.

Cruz knows this. Everyone knows this.

If Cruz seriously wanted this to happen, he'd push it. He'd be on the radio talk shows. he'd be on the Fox shows. He'd be posting a ton on every social media site out there.

Booma94 said:

---

Tom Doniphon said:

---

The Cruz haters will still cling to, "he hasn't done anything," despite him being the most intelligent and conservative member of either house.

---

While I agree, that isn't quite the claim it should be. Cruz is very intelligent, but there are a lot of dim bulbs in DC, so saying he's the most intelligent is like being the tallest midget.

---

Yes... lots of "tallest midgets" are constitutional scholars that have argued in front of the SCOTUS.

tysker said:

---

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office

---

If only!

Of course he knows it won't pass. That being said, I love the Senator. He's the only hope in my Obi-Wan trifecta in DC.