I am a little conflicted on this issue. While I like the idea of term limits to keep the career politicians at bay, they do serve a purpose. Part of me feels that we need limits so that the old time idiots of both parties have to move on and let someone else represent the constituency.
But on the other hand, I also feel that if they were forced to move on they would be more willing to make risky votes because they won't have to answer to or depend on constituency for support. If they know they are going down they will be more willing to make radical moves.
So, are you for or against term limits? If you are against them, how do we hold bad long term politicians responsible for their negligent behavior?
Asked by Anonymous at 5:39 PM on Feb. 12, 2010 in Politics & Current Events
Answer by 29again at 6:11 PM on Feb. 12, 2010
Answer by ecodani at 6:20 PM on Feb. 12, 2010
Answer by TBandNCmommy at 6:21 PM on Feb. 12, 2010
Term Limits, not only for corruption of being a career politician. But also they tend to lose touch with their constitutients and speak based on what they THINK their people want...should be someone OF the people, not OF Washington
Answer by sweet-a-kins at 6:22 PM on Feb. 12, 2010
I think that if a big portion of people are unhappy with them they should be out. There is so much corruption I feel that there needs to be a panel of people that have the power to fire and hire these people like a real boss could. These congressmen and women need to feel like they could lose their job if they aren't doing it what their employers (US the people) want.
Answer by SylviaNCali at 7:01 PM on Feb. 12, 2010
Answer by stacymomof2 at 8:39 PM on Feb. 12, 2010
Answer by stacymomof2 at 8:40 PM on Feb. 12, 2010
Answer by stacymomof2 at 8:41 PM on Feb. 12, 2010
Answer by NotPanicking at 8:47 PM on Feb. 12, 2010
Answer by meriana at 4:19 AM on Feb. 13, 2010
Next question overall
(Just for Fun)
What's a show you never thought your LO would like in a million years?