TexasCHLforum.com

pcgizzmo wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

I have to disagree. Term limits is what has gotten us to where we are today in Washington in my opinion for exactly the reason you are saying. They are all afraid to make hard tough decisions for fear of losing their jobs. They already do what they want and that is no compromise or cooperation and that is the problem. There a bunch of little kids that all want there way. That's not what we as Americans elect them for, pay them for or deserve.

I guess you can see it both ways but if the president needs term limits so does everyone else. Congress has probably more power than the president as a whole because they can make laws. This is where the founding fathers were short sighted in my opinion. The longer there in there the longer big business and special interest have to get their hands on them.

I've long waited for term limits and to a tee everyone I've ever mentioned it to agrees and I've talked to a lot of people about it.

Then vote out your Congressman, but you don't get to vote on mine. Then our votes can compete for our Senators, but we don't get to vote on the Senators of other states.

I don't want any elected official "making hard tough decisions." I don't vote for a guidance counselor or a mentor. I vote for a robot who will do what I want him or her to do. I don't trust their judgment over mine. Obviously I can't have that, so the only way I can make them do what I want and not what they want to do is by joining with other people who share my view and forming organizations that have the power to remove them from office during the next election.

When Jerry Patterson was a State Senator he said it best. He said he has nondiscretionary and discretionary votes. A non-discretionary vote is one on an issue concerning which his constituents have told him how to vote. His opinion doesn't matter; he's there to do what his constituents tell him to do. A discretionary votes occurs on an issue when his constituents haven't told him how to vote, or they are evenly split on an issue.

Chas.

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

Would you repeal the 22nd Amendment?

No.

Chas.

Then I ask you sincerely, what is different about term limits for the President versus term limits for Congress? Why are you opposed to the latter yet wouldn't support repeal of the former?

The President is one elected official; Congress is 535 people. I don't want another Roosevelt.

Chas.

I don't want another Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, ad nauseum.

You don't get to make that decision anymore than Californians get to decide of Ted Cruz is your Senator. This confirms my earlier point; people want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Everyone votes for the President, not so for Congressmen and Senators.

Chas.

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

Would you repeal the 22nd Amendment?

No.

Chas.

Then I ask you sincerely, what is different about term limits for the President versus term limits for Congress? Why are you opposed to the latter yet wouldn't support repeal of the former?

The President is one elected official; Congress is 535 people. I don't want another Roosevelt.

Chas.

louisf1 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

Mr Cotton,
I am not sure I understand your statement here. You say you are opposed to term limits and then go on to speak of the reason there should be term limits. Am I missing your point here ? Are you saying that term limits would create a time period where the elected representative knows that they are done so they could do as they please? I really never thought of it this way but it makes sense to me.

Yes, that's my opinion. The only time elected officials are answerable to the people who elected them is when they want to get reelected.

Chas.

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

Would you repeal the 22nd Amendment?

No.

Chas.

I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.