Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Term Limits

13 replies to this topic
Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#1

Posted 27 November 2011 - 05:04 AM

What do you think of term limits? I don't know how effective they'd be. I mean in the US at least, and I'm sure the UK too, it isn't easy to be a congressperson/MP. It takes at least one full term in congress (2 years in the US) to learn what the hell you're doing, and probably at least 4-5 terms just to amass enough connections to get things done for your constituency. I hear all the same old bullsh*t such as "throw everyone out of office and replace them don't vote for any local incumbent" etc and it's just tiring. People say let the constituents decide if they want to throw someone out or not, but then the argument is the incumbent has such an advantage that is next to impossible to get them out of office. In the US the incumbent reelection rate is 98%.

leaflinks
  • leaflinks

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2005

#2

Posted 28 November 2011 - 05:26 PM

In the UK, we don't have term limits. We don't abide by republican philosophy.

Term limits are there to keep potential dictators out, unfortunately it is a double edged sword. But a necessary one!

Heisenberg
  • Heisenberg

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2011

#3

Posted 28 November 2011 - 07:23 PM

From an individual's point of view, the type of government makes little difference as long as sanitation and a healthy trade is at an adequate level to avoid famine and supply basic commodities. Democracies offer nothing greater so I don't understand the fear of dictatorship, that is unless of course, you have investment in a multi national corporation.

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#4

Posted 28 November 2011 - 08:02 PM

QUOTE (Heisenberg @ Monday, Nov 28 2011, 14:23)
From an individual's point of view, the type of government makes little difference as long as sanitation and a healthy trade is at an adequate level to avoid famine and supply basic commodities. Democracies offer nothing greater so I don't understand the fear of dictatorship, that is unless of course, you have investment in a multi national corporation.

What? So political freedoms, government providing services to the people, f*ck even national defense, is not important to the individual?

Heisenberg
  • Heisenberg

    Square Civilian

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Aug 2011

#5

Posted 28 November 2011 - 08:32 PM

Let's face it, it's far too impractical to give political responsibility to each and every citizen, and considering a large population are represented without their consent regardless (minors, prisoners, immigrants, citizens abroad), there lies a fundamental flaw in democracy. The average man that even has the full eligible right to vote making his living in small trade doesn't have the time to play catch up on who's who and what their policies will mean for him. He relies completely on the media to inform him of the options. The best the aforementioned man could do is hope the economic and social environment can provide an easy road to life, and if that's the case, how is democracy working for the individual?

Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#6

Posted 28 November 2011 - 09:21 PM

Term limits are nowhere near as important as the right of the general public to decide who leads what party. Why should Labour, for example, have the right to put a pathetic dupe like Ed Miliband in power? The man is a puppet of the Unions, a witless yes-man hand picked by gangsters and fat-cats to add legitimacy to their endless powerplays and strikes.
Shouldn't the public have a right to stop such undemocratic practices? If a man is elected to the head of his political party through duplicitous and underhanded means, how can anyone be sure that he will safeguard their democratic rights?
Term limits are worthless, just a distraction from the rampant corruption, nepotism and backstabbing which goes on in the political arena.

leaflinks
  • leaflinks

    Peon

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2005

#7

Posted 29 November 2011 - 03:05 PM

There will always be these problems, so term limits to serve a purpose.

MIKON8ERISBACK
  • MIKON8ERISBACK

    My real name is Michael. #FACT.

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Nov 2011

#8

Posted 08 July 2012 - 06:26 PM

Term limits are what will prevent Obama/the Democrat Party from transforming America into a Socialist Republic. When you abolish term limits you wind up like countries like Cuba, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and China.

El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#9

Posted 08 July 2012 - 07:13 PM

QUOTE (MIKON8ERISBACK)
Term limits are what will prevent Obama/the Democrat Party from transforming America into a Socialist Republic.

lol.
you're an idiot.

now, to address the OP's question...

QUOTE (Irviding @ Saturday, Nov 26 2011, 22:04)
What do you think of term limits? I don't know how effective they'd be.

the interesting thing about term limits is that (at least in the US) they probably wouldn't help the problem of corruption.
not without real / comprehensive campaign finance reform.

the prevailing notion about term limits is that they would curb corruption by eliminating the concept of career politicians who must constantly raise money in order to preserve incumbency. the idea, of course, is that constant running for re-election is what breeds most of the corrupting favors. when you always need money to fight off your opponents then you're open to all manner of influences.

but without finance reform, the introduction of term limits would probably have the opposite effect.
corruption might actually become worse.

think about it like this: if we already know that you only have ONE chance for JUST a few years to be a congressman, then lobbyists and corporations might be even more willing to lavish you with bribes in order to get favorable legislation. because they know that their window of opportunity is that much smaller. and so they know that their tactics for bribery must be that much more aggressive. the congressman himself might also be even more willing to take bribes because they also know it's their only opportunity.

term limits alone might only make things worse in that regard.

Oakshaft
  • Oakshaft

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2011

#10

Posted 09 July 2012 - 01:42 AM

I think they are a bit dumb, ex. lets say 2 years into Obamas first term, Obama put something into place that cost 20 billion dollars and would work perfectly and help out the american people significantly. But then as soon a the next person comes in (say its Mitt Romney) he spends 25 billion dollars revoking all the work that Obama did.


I dont know if that makes sense but thats the way I see it

Irviding
  • Irviding

    No bed crew

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#11

Posted 09 July 2012 - 02:13 AM

QUOTE (Oakshaft @ Sunday, Jul 8 2012, 20:42)
I think they are a bit dumb, ex. lets say 2 years into Obamas first term, Obama put something into place that cost 20 billion dollars and would work perfectly and help out the american people significantly. But then as soon a the next person comes in (say its Mitt Romney) he spends 25 billion dollars revoking all the work that Obama did.


I dont know if that makes sense but thats the way I see it

It's a little simplistic but it makes sense. Basically, what you're saying is the old reason agreed with by many, i.e. "don't change horses in midstream".

Oakshaft
  • Oakshaft

    Trick

  • Members
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2011

#12

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:04 AM Edited by Oakshaft, 15 July 2012 - 11:50 PM.

Exactly

bobgtafan
  • bobgtafan

    The last thing you never see

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2009

#13

Posted 11 July 2012 - 02:42 AM

QUOTE (Heisenberg @ Monday, Nov 28 2011, 20:32)
Let's face it, it's far too impractical to give political responsibility to each and every citizen, and considering a large population are represented without their consent regardless (minors, prisoners, immigrants, citizens abroad), there lies a fundamental flaw in democracy. The average man that even has the full eligible right to vote making his living in small trade doesn't have the time to play catch up on who's who and what their policies will mean for him. He relies completely on the media to inform him of the options. The best the aforementioned man could do is hope the economic and social environment can provide an easy road to life, and if that's the case, how is democracy working for the individual?

Democracy works because a large amount economic, social and political interest can lobby the government and change public opinion through the media which is very varied today, with everything between MSNBC to Glenn Beck offering different perspectives along with unbiased media like the Associated Press. Further democracy keeps human rights and economic growth at every politicians to do list if only because if they don't move forward on those fronts they'll be voted out of office. If you look at the stats democracies generally win more wars, have higher standards of living, and more political rights because if a politician wants to stay in power he/she has to follow the general will of the people.

CheesyJ
  • CheesyJ

    Mack Pimp

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jul 2011

#14

Posted 13 July 2012 - 10:45 PM

I'm not so sure if they are really necessary to be honest. We don't have them in Britain and we haven't been under any threat of turning into a dictatorship at all. I can partly see the logic on why America has them, but if they end up with a president who does a great job for the country and they want to keep him/her, then they will soon see the drawbacks to having terms limits. I think countries are better without them personally, as long as the democracy of them is kept intact.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users