1. As a guest you have limited access to the forums.
  2. Membership is free.
  3. So why not Sign up now!

Changes needed in the rules to be in Congress and the Senate

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Affairs' started by buffyfan, Jun 8, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Ok. It is past time that this gets changed. Somehow we did not learn from Thurmond. So now I go to McCain. He was INCOHERENT today. It was like he did not know where he was or what the hearing was about. We need to set an age limit at the top.

    That said. If you can vote and join the military? You should be able to serve in CONGRESS. Even 25 seems kind of "artificial".
     
  2. JDT

    JDT New Member

    I agree, I believe there needs to be term limits , no more than 4 terms max would be a good starting point.
     
  3. JDT

    JDT New Member

    And a max age too, unless they can pass a test every election cycle, I would say limits at 70 to 75 tops. Maybe even younger than that. It would do some good to have congress and senators who have fresh ideas.
     
  4. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Today McCain said "President Comey" at least twice. He asked multiple times about the "Hilary Russia" investigation. He is the current poster boy for "age limit".
     
  5. pussycat

    pussycat Administrator Staff Member

    Great idea Buffyfan!
    Why don't you guys set a 70 limit for all elected offices
    That way you could get rid of Trump.

    :D
     
    JDT and Dad's toy like this.
  6. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    You know that Saunders is older than Trump, and Clinton is only 2 years younger so everyone in the last election would have been barred.
     
  7. pussycat

    pussycat Administrator Staff Member

    Works for me!!!!

    :)
     
    JDT and Neophyte like this.
  8. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    I am talking Senators. Here is why. A senator @ 70 elected is 76, then 82 @ second re election. A POTUS can not exceed age plus 8. A senator can serve until death.

    That said. This is also an issue of "if you elect people who are "elders"?" There are not new ideas in the mix. Just more pining for a "rose colored" how things WERE.
     
    Neophyte likes this.
  9. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    Pussycat was talking about Trump and I was answering her. For Congress I say if 65 or 67 is the retirement age for everyone else, it should be the same for them. Congress should never exempt themselves from what others are subject too.
     
    pussycat and annab2 like this.
  10. annab2

    annab2 Trusted Member"It ain't pretty being easy!"

    Personally, I favor two terms and out completely! No more PS offices, that is covering lobbyists too! I don't trust any politician, as far as I can spit! (I'm a good girl!) So, I never spit! But you need to pay the price of admission, for the experience! :);)
     
  11. pussycat

    pussycat Administrator Staff Member

    I'd take it one step further - manditory retirement at 65 (or 70, take your pick) for any public official. That means congress, the President etc, Supreme court justices, the whole lot. And 2 terms max like annab2 suggested.

    Keep the government in sync and in tune with the population, not a bunch of doddering old fools who still think its 1960.

    It's not just America, what the world needs is another JFK.
     
    annab2 and Neophyte like this.
  12. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    I am a politician and take offense at that. The extent of my power as mayor is cutting ribbons and maintaining 7 dirt roads and 2 buildings with a budget akin to a suburban household.
     
    annab2 likes this.
  13. annab2

    annab2 Trusted Member"It ain't pretty being easy!"

    My apologies!
    Public Office within States, Counties, and Cities are not inclusive of my opinion of career politicians! I speak of the ones that are doing REAL harm at the State, Federal, and National level! (Buffyfan, you I like!) :) No offense intended! :rolleyes:
     
  14. annab2

    annab2 Trusted Member"It ain't pretty being easy!"

    No more "Legacies!" No one is ever happy with a legacy President! JFK was a 1950's-early-1960's politician, by today's standards, JFK would be an Ultra-Conservative! ;)

    They would need to rewrite all of our "Founding Documents" Supreme Court Justices's have always been a Lifetime Appointment, directed by sitting Presidents! You would have to show me the "workable plan!" Just to avoid the ensuing CHAOS! :eek:o_O
     
    jillicious likes this.
  15. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Justices are are a hard one. And one I will say maybe should be left intact. But. I do think the late Bush and Late Obama should have taught us this. President should nominate. That person should get an up or down. No more "on our time, when and if we choose to at all".
     
    annab2 likes this.
  16. pussycat

    pussycat Administrator Staff Member

    By Canadian standards, I'm an Ultra-Conservative. By US standards, I'm a "left wing liberal" (or worse). They're both wrong, but that's beside the point, lol. I meant JFK was a relatively young president, he had vision, he was a forward thinker. I don't care about his political stripe. Pierre Trudeau was the same, love him or hate him.

    A workable plan for the Supreme Court? Easy enough - manditory retirement at age (insert a number). President appoints a new one, just as he does now. And no nonsense about " we'll wait for the next President", what the Republicans pulled was crap.

    Think about this: People are living longer. That's not an alternate fact, its the truth. If you nominate someone to a position for life, it is a mathmatical certainty that over time, the average age of any body, Supreme Court or otherwise, will increase. Do you really want a collection of 90 yr olds making decisions of ultimate authority? I sure as hell don't.

    In a Democracy, the government rules by consent of the governed. The Executive, the Legislature, the Judiciary, all should represent the will of the people, and the only way to do that is to have them represent an appropriate cross section of the people, not just their fellow octogenarions.

    And for the record, I know we're discussing the US here, but I don't mean to sound like I'm "America bashing", I would apply my comments to ALL western societies, especially my own.

    My 2 cents.

    :)
     
  17. annab2

    annab2 Trusted Member"It ain't pretty being easy!"

    I take pride in being a dual citizen of Canada and the USA! :D:cool:
     
    pussycat likes this.
  18. Neophyte

    Neophyte Administrator Staff Member

    I must point out that the Republicans have not done anything the Democrats haven't done multiple times in the past. Only that the fact that the Democrats had done it was and is being suppressed in the news.
     
    annab2 likes this.
  19. pussycat

    pussycat Administrator Staff Member

    I do not doubt that in the least.
     
    annab2 likes this.
  20. buffyfan

    buffyfan Moderator Staff Member

    Supreme Court was set up specifically not to listen to "the will of the people". Their job is to interpret and rule based on the Constitution. Not "what the majority of the public feels".
     
    annab2 likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.