Imo, the single biggest failing of the founding fathers was not having term limits for Congress rats written in the Constitution. They had it for President.

I thought he 81 10 years ago. Just go away. Many of our countries problems today can be laid right at his feet.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Imo, the single biggest failing of the founding fathers was not having term limits for Congress rats written in the Constitution. They had it for President.

Actually, the US Constitution did not enumerate term limits for the President, only that the term of office was four years. The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951 established that a President could only be elected twice to that office. The two-term tradition established by Washington & Jefferson stood until FDR was elected to a third & fourth term as President in 1940 and 1944. Congress subsequently passed the 22nd Amendment in 1947.

I think he tripped over the truth. He didn't recognize it.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Imo, the single biggest failing of the founding fathers was not having term limits for Congress rats written in the Constitution. They had it for President.

Actually, the US Constitution did not enumerate term limits for the President, only that the term of office was four years. The 22nd Amendment, ratified in 1951 established that a President could only be elected twice to that office. The two-term tradition established by Washington & Jefferson stood until FDR was elected to a third & fourth term as President in 1940 and 1944. Congress subsequently passed the 22nd Amendment in 1947.

Thanks. I need to study my history again. Fell asleep in class that day. Sad that it will be a cold day in hell before the rats will propose legislation that will kick themselves off the gravy train.

The Life Extension Foundation article discusses muscle wasting as you age and now has a product to turn things around:

https://www.lifeextension.com/...s-preventing-frailty

https://www.lifeextension.com/...-and-restore-formula

Get well soon Mitch.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
But Mitch can't keep his seat if they don't keep electing him.

You're correct, of course, but we all know and understand that a good majority of voters are uneducated on nearly every issue. They just see "Incumbent" next to his name on the ballot, figure he must be good, and check the box. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 97% of incumbents are re-elected (due in no small part to lobbyist money flowing into their campaigns).

I wish we could vote our way out of this mess, but recent history has proven that it ain't possible. Our system is broken and needs fixing.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Sad that it will be a cold day in hell before the rats will propose legislation that will kick themselves off the gravy train.

I believe someone (Gaetz perhaps?) did introduce it this session. It'll go nowhere for now but hey, it's a start.

Until I was mid-20's to early 30's, a absolutely opposed term limits. Now I have seen more doddering fools and outright crooks, I absolutely support term limits.

The few good people you lost to term limits would be grossly offset by the bad apples tossed out of the barrel.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:

It's the only way people like him will relinquish their power and rule over regular people.

At 81 years old and having "served" for so long, I have the belief he lost effectiveness long ago. Yet they keep holding on.

The voters in Kentucky keep electing him. It isn't as if Mitch is barricaded in his office refusing to vacate, having lost an election.

Maybe there should be term limits, a view which I am coming more and more to as time goes on. But Mitch can't keep his seat if they don't keep electing him.

I'll be happy that McConnell kept another Obama justice off the Supreme Court. I don't agree with all of anything any politician does, but that is not nothing.

It probably is time for McConnell to retire, but I hope he recovers.

Something to consider is that incumbent politicians have or create for themselves advantages over challengers. Here in Utah the advantage is one Hatch discovered and it guaranteed his re-election. He taught it to Romney and the RINO establishment cleared the way for the carpet bagger to run even though there was legislation barring that. Other States likely have similar exploitable vulnerabilities. As a purist, I reflexively reject term limits. But, the job of politician has become more rewarding and coveted unlike at the founding, election system flaws are being exploited and the public is no longer being served. I don;t think the founders could have anticipated these circumstances as they also didn't expect unelected eternal omnipotent bureaucracies to oppress the people by proxy.

In thinking about term limits, one must apply the Dilbert principle, which is more likely? Will a politician react to them by striving to do as much good as possible in the limited time available, or will they desperately go after whatever personal wealth and power they can grab?

Another way of looking at this is to extend the idea that a politician's first objective after winning an election is to get re-elected. With term limits, the objective becomes to get elected to another political office. Probably not why they were elected.

In other words, I suspect that term limits wouldn't change the game all that much, but at least it might give us a whole bunch of new faces to mock.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

I don;t think the founders could have anticipated these circumstances as they also didn't expect unelected eternal omnipotent bureaucracies to oppress the people by proxy.

I believe they did anticipate scoundrels and megalomaniacs to gain public office. They did not expect the new republic to survive peacefully for more than a few decades. They expected repeated uprisings to oust tyrants and criminals, and perhaps even re-formulate the nation if necessary.

That whole "refresh the tree of liberty" thing.

The truth is that human civilization has never been static anywhere, and the Founders knew it. We can expect major changes to our nation, and it won't be a pleasant process when it happens. It happened in the 1770's and the 1860's. It will happen again.

I'm generally opposed to term limits but Pushing Turtle McConnell is just the man to change my mind.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
Well best of luck, falling at that age isn't good, maybe it will send him a message to go back to his Old Kentucky Home and retire.

If he does become incapacitated, KY's governor is a big left wing D, "Little Andy" Beshear, does he get to appoint a replacement, if so wonder if he'll put in Allison Grimes D, a hard core left winger of AOC likeness...

Nope, her political days are done.
He’d pick the far worse Charles Booker.

Politicians hang on to their jobs like grim death. Well into their eighties and beyond. When the rest of the working class starts preparing for retirement at a early age and strives to reach it at the earliest age possible.

I can't understand why. I have no sympathy for old Mitch. Should have been safely enjoying his retirement instead of at some private cocktail dinner party cutting deals.

It’s called “drunk with power”. The endorphin rush and high, achieved by lording over us minions and subjects, must be irresistable.

Term limits may or may not help for all the reasons discussed above. Equally bad, if not worse, is the army of regulation writing little bureaucrats.

Maybe term limits should apply to them as well

quote:

Maybe term limits should apply to them as well

The theory in political science was always that it takes knowledgeable an powerful elected officials to counterbalance the long-term bureaucrats, long-term appointees in the Congressional Research Service and other legislative support groups, and experienced and connected lobbyists.

The idea is that bureaucrats, researchers and lobbyists wind up having far more in-depth knowledge of facts, law and procedures, and that less-experienced or knowledgeable legislators would necessarily be dependent on their expertise in order to be able to work efficiently or at all. The end result, of course, is inevitably a technocracy like we saw running California up to and after the days of Schwarzenegger's tenure as Governor.

OTOH, Robert Byrd and Pushing Turtle McConnell are supposed to be the paragons of experienced and knowledgeable legislators, so maybe that particular cure is at least as bad as the disease.

I don't know exactly what the alternative solution is, but I certainly believe that we need one. Private citizens that develop the necessary skills and knowledge have a nasty tendency to run for office or become lobbyists and get absorbed by the Swamp.

IF the government were small and limited in power, there would be no worry of powerful elected officials or of powerful unelected bureaucrats.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:

It's the only way people like him will relinquish their power and rule over regular people.

At 81 years old and having "served" for so long, I have the belief he lost effectiveness long ago. Yet they keep holding on.

The voters in Kentucky keep electing him. It isn't as if Mitch is barricaded in his office refusing to vacate, having lost an election.

Maybe there should be term limits, a view which I am coming more and more to as time goes on. But Mitch can't keep his seat if they don't keep electing him.

I'll be happy that McConnell kept another Obama justice off the Supreme Court. I don't agree with all of anything any politician does, but that is not nothing.

It probably is time for McConnell to retire, but I hope he recovers.

Something to consider is that incumbent politicians have or create for themselves advantages over challengers. Here in Utah the advantage is one Hatch discovered and it guaranteed his re-election. He taught it to Romney and the RINO establishment cleared the way for the carpet bagger to run even though there was legislation barring that. Other States likely have similar exploitable vulnerabilities. As a purist, I reflexively reject term limits. But, the job of politician has become more rewarding and coveted unlike at the founding, election system flaws are being exploited and the public is no longer being served. I don;t think the founders could have anticipated these circumstances as they also didn't expect unelected eternal omnipotent bureaucracies to oppress the people by proxy.

Another problem is that voters tend to like "their" guy and keep re-electing them over and over, while excoriating the reps from other places. This phenomenon happens repeatedly.

That is why term limits look more and more like the answer. I didn't favor them for years, but am changing my mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
IF the government were small and limited in power, there would be no worry of powerful elected officials or of powerful unelected bureaucrats.

If pigs had wings . . .