Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Kennah

(14,465 posts)
14. It used to seem important to me, but today it's a distant issue at best
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 03:29 PM
Sep 2012

As others have said, campaign reform via overturning Citizens United is a much more important matter.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Any level of government? Kennah Sep 2012 #1
yes hrmjustin Sep 2012 #4
It used to seem important to me, but today it's a distant issue at best Kennah Sep 2012 #14
I think it is something that we should at least have a debate about in congress and the media. n/t hrmjustin Sep 2012 #15
I am not sure it matters. DURHAM D Sep 2012 #2
I'm against them. They would put lobbyists in charge. Elections do work if you vote. Viva_Daddy Sep 2012 #3
They're not in charge now? n/t Smarmie Doofus Sep 2012 #5
It's the only way to get rid of career Congressmen and Senators with ultra-safe seats bluestateguy Sep 2012 #6
I would support term limits, but with longer terms Scootaloo Sep 2012 #8
i'm with you 100% on that antigop19667 Jan 2013 #21
Not a fraction as important as (1) campaign reform and (2) return to paper voting. nt valerief Sep 2012 #7
I'm not sure this 5/4 SCOTUS would ever let it stand. Smarmie Doofus Sep 2012 #9
I'm actually against them. eppur_se_muova Sep 2012 #10
I am against them, entirely. longship Sep 2012 #11
For U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, it would require a constitutional amendment... Agnosticsherbet Sep 2012 #12
No- no term limits. In term-limited California, the lobbyists are the mentors for the newly elected NBachers Sep 2012 #13
that is a great point about ted hrmjustin Sep 2012 #16
Spam deleted by NRaleighLiberal (MIR Team) TheNaimSadik Oct 2012 #17
I used to think they were a great idea daveMN Nov 2012 #18
01/04/2013: A bill proposing we repeal the constitutional limit on the number of Presidential terms Howzit Jan 2013 #19
If we had a democracy, I'd be against them. Stevepol Jan 2013 #20
We must have a term and 1 family person limit for each person elected to office; no dictatorships. WilliamTuckness Jun 2014 #22
I don't agree with limitations on families but I think two terms in the Senate and 6 terms in hrmjustin Jun 2014 #23
I like 2 terms in Senate limit and 6 terms in House limit; prohibit families from taking over. WilliamTuckness Jun 2014 #24
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2014 #25
Absolutely AGAINST Term Limits ... Trajan Jun 2014 #26
Term limits mean that right around the time SheilaT Jun 2014 #27
I go back and forth on them Prophet 451 Jun 2014 #28
Against. for many of reasons already listed. northoftheborder Jun 2014 #29
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Election Reform»Anyone have any thoughts ...»Reply #14