Term limits have down sides... locally, it has the potential of removing the congressional leadership that *your* representative may have worked up the ranks to achieve. And locally, I do believe there is a limited number of qualified/skilled representatives. I find the shortage even more dangerous here in the Houston area... where you only have GOP candidates for most positions. And even nationally... if it weren't for term limits, do you think we would be arguing who was worst between Trump or Clinton? Also seems you are putting a rule in place to protect you from yourself. Instead of forcing you to not vote for a representative who may be the best at representing your needs and interests, why not *not* vote for the people you want to *not* represent you?
Getting re-elected is the only issue that is truly bi-partisan. Democrats have run scared from gun control for years but now that they think it's a winning political argument they've found their voice again. Republicans have found a serious growth of gun-confiscation fear among their base so it juices their coffers and gives them a strong political weapon to paint any any bill as one step closer to taking away all guns. There you have it. Bi-partisan agreement that getting elected is the driver of what we'll do and say as politicians.
Seems like a tangent from the thread. But, I believe in this very basic tenant of human civilization, that specialization and trade makes us more prosperous. Career politicians are better at their jobs than amateurs and society will reap better outcomes with the professionals. Now, I don't really have a big beef with term limits, just don't see much benefit from having them. I think it is wise to have one on the presidency given the potential for dictatorship from that role. But, you can have professional politicians despite term limits. Once they're term-limited in the House, they can switch to the Senate, then maybe get a governorship, maybe appointed to lead a Department for the White House, and so on. It would probably do them good, really, to move around. I know dabbling in different disciplines has helped me in my career. But, I don't want to see some amateurs jumping thinking that because they were successful in business or Hollywood or academia that running the country will be easy. We always get our best work out of professionals who dedicate their careers to pursuing a specialty. It doesn't mean I love the current system. I recognize that we have politicians who are putting their own professional interests ahead of the welfare of the country. I want to address the issue as best we can, but I don't believe in a 'throw the bums out' approach. I don't have a beef with the Establishment. The Establishment is us, doing the best we can to govern ourselves. Instead, I would like to align as much as possible the incentives for the politicians with good outcomes for the country, just like any Board of Directors might do to motivate their officers to do the right things. That's something else you lose with amateur politicians -- you'll get guys like Trump that are immune to incentive structures and will do whatever the hell they want. They won't care if they get voted out or impeached or blackballed so long as they manage to accomplish X, Y, and Z before they go.
The one thing you always have bipartisan support for is increasing spending....the parties don't always agree where they want to spend it, but taking more and more from the people is always popular. Congress is always filled with big government Democrats and big government Republicans.
I think we think similarly but I disagree that about the establishment being us. I truly do not feel that our citizens are well represented by the current system. That is why I wanted to discuss non-partisan topics because I think that our country is closer together than we are being represented as being in the media and in elections. Most of the people I work around in Texas are conservatives but they aren't racist, gun-nut, religious whack jobs. I have lots of liberal friends and they aren't out killing fetuses, hoping for the second coming of the USSR. Somewhere in the middle we need to be represented and the conversation needs to move away from divisiveness.
In regards to term limits and lobbying, keep in mind: 1. A politician who doesn't have to run for re-election can do whatever they want - they are not trapped by the need to raise money, but they also are not trapped by the need to care what their voters wanted. 2. Lobbying has become about money and gifts, which is ridiculous. But the theoretical purpose of lobbying is sound. Politicians are not experts in energy and finance and agriculture and the environment and the thousands of other issues they deal with. The idea of lobbying is for experts in those fields to provide relevant information to government officials so they can make informed decisions. That's a good thing. The whole thing has gone to hell in its implementation, but it's a necessary profession. 3. Rookie representatives have more need for lobbyists since they have less accumulated knowledge. So term limits will increase lobbying.
I think terms limiting somebody to a 10 year career in Washington allow for both sides of the issue and as somebody else mentioned you could move from Rep to Sen and get 20 years. Lobbying should just be groups trying to influence policy but with the cost of reelection it seems to be more ugly than it should be.
The biggest roadblock to bi-partisan accomplishment is a stubborn belief that "your" side is correct and the "other" side is not only wrong, but evil. That leads to the idea that compromise is wrong.
This is a big reason I wish we had a viable 3rd party. I think it would make everyone's desire to compromise a lot greater and move all of the parties closer to center.
Professional politicians could be as important as professional doctors provided that have a basically humanitarian sense of the job. There is a massive amount of information to know the intricacies of for every legislative issue, parliamentary procedure is a knowledge base unto itself, networking between agencies and personal relationships grows over time. You can't say someone served too long if they really serve the people.
This is not a bipartisanship issue, but it may be tangentially related. With a few exceptions within both major parties, Washington politicians are slaves to their masters. Think BPharma, BTobacco and Big Oil. They obviously differ on personal issues like abortion and religion. Otherwise, the corrupting power of political donations have long ****.ed Joe6Pack. Yet, the media wonders why a good portion of the electorate angry.
Lets be reasonable here. There is a strong liberal sediment that guns should be confiscated. While I wont deny there is some sediment that everyone should own a gun, the voice that does exist is an extreme minority.
not really... I don't think there are many Americans that wouldn't support hunting and sport shooting. But assault rifles, 100 round clips, armor piercing ammo, no background checks, or short waiting periods don't impede that. <div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:comedycentral.com:de6cac1f-f64c-4e2c-9578-94ebe3ffaf7d" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="true"></iframe></div></div>
Many gun people do not mind those options, except your "scary" assault rifles. If you're going to ramble on about assault rifles, then in the very least go learn what an assault rifle is. To put it in perspective, you could take a musket and put a bayonette or pistol grip on it and that would constitute an assault rifle. Now take your standard semi automatic hunting rifle, add those two examples and its now an assault rifle. Idiots.
Can we stop reflexively putting "big" in front of something or calling it an "industrial complex" to make it categorically seem more sinister?
The second amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting or even home defense. The second amendment is about the citizens of the US having the right to defend themselves from governments. Since this is what the amendment is about the citizens should have access to arms similar to those used but the soldiers employed by those governments. Just like the musket was the weapon of the military when the amendment was written, today the AR or AK type riffle is typical. The background checks and waiting periods are a different discussion.
Since our military will likely be armed with bazookas, mortars, flamethrowers, tanks, hand-grenades and cannons, I reckon we all should also be able to own and operate these weapons as well... after all, we sure don't want to be out armed by our own military...
