>

Term limits are not the way, age limits are IMO. Set the retirement age, 65-67 whatever, and EVERYONE has to go by that age. Judges, POTUS, reps, Senators.
Get money out of politics and this isn't a problem anyway.
They say this stuff knowing full well it’ll never pass because they all want to keep the grift running and line their pockets from donors. It’s all just garbage talk to get people excited for them. >

Term limits for presidents is a good idea. The power difference between a senator and president is stark and the more time the president has in office the more likely he could become a dictator if he wanted too. FDR had some pretty authoritarian tendencies. I think a long term limit like 18 years for Senators and 20 for house members is good. It prevents the Mitch McConnells from sticking around and still let's experience be there >

I agree. Two terms isn’t enough for a Senator. Maybe four, the out the door. >

Ted Cruz only cares about Ted Cruz. He wants term limits for everyone else but that not in his best interest so he's just going to keep running for reelection regardless. He's a self centered hypocrite and he's aware of that and he doesn't care >

In his defence (I never thought I would say this) it's very much illegal to retroactively limit the rights of elected officials in most places.
I'm not in the US, but I am pretty sure that retroactive laws in general  are unconstitutional. >

It would be wrong to set a law that removed any senators that have served for more than two terms. It would not be an issue to pass a law to make them ineligible to run for another one. >

The constitutional 2 term limit for presidents did not apply to the  Harry S. Truman who was the incumbent while it was ratified. I would assume that the same thing would apply here. >

It didn’t apply to Truman because it didn’t apply to Truman.

But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term. >

Sounds like legalese to make sure that they don't retroactively limit the rights of elected officials, which as I said before, is probably not legal. >

If the amendment specified that it did apply to the sitting president, then it's legal. Nothing surpasses the Constitution and it's amendments.
I have mixed feelings about the proposed bill only working for newly elected senators. It'll be easier to pass if we allow an exception, but then we'll have a situation for the next couple decades where we have VERY senior senators. 
Edit: 
Maybe the wording can say:   people can only be elected 2x beginning n 2023. >

Rules for thee, and not for me! >

Never expect a republican to lead by example. >

That's not true, watch them lead the way to the dark money. >

Term limits would be okay if we also had proportional representation. But on its own it's a rather bland idea that conservatives trot out from time to time to pretend to be political innovators. >

Bland? Its the best solution to prevent years if not decades of stagnation due to lifer politicans and also to not allow our political houses to turn into geriatric old folks homes. Voting has already become perverted and is just getting worse. Id take a lame duck over people like Mitch McConnel,Ted Cruz, or Hillary Clinton staying there for 50 years. It should apply to all political houses in the US.
Edit: also a max age, seeing as a lot of our political houses have minimum ages. I could see being fair and making it 80, it would clear out 1/3 of the senate by itself. >

So to combat "stagnation" we should surrender political power to unelected lobbyists. 
No thanks. >

You mean LITERALLY what is happening currently in this country? Unless the politicians are extremists, they are getting hard paid by lobbiests. >

Yes, and the problem would not be fixed but would be made worse by term limits.  I use this as a litmus test to gauge how informed someone's approach to politics is.  Anytime you're position in inline with ALEC, it doesn't mean that you're definitely wrong, but you should wonder why conservative lobbyists are advocating for the same thing as you. >

Oh I'm sure Republicans have a plan for it. at the very least it would change who their opponents are on the other side and if the right person replaced them at the right time, theyd be able to pass bullshit while still grandstanding that everything was fair. Also it would replace Republicans who hold to their guns on issues and give the ability to... readjust priorities. >

I loathe Ted Cruz.  He is just a detestable person, a utterly worthless Senator, and a tool.
But this is fine with me.  He's abiding by the law as it is while trying to change it.  For me, it's the same as Democrats working every day to ban dark money, but using it until it is banned (because otherwise it would be ridiculous). >

But the difference is banning dark money would be an improvement, whereas term limits would be a degradation.
No points for not being a hypocrite in the process of making things worse. >


whereas term limits would be a degradation.

Term limits empower the congressional staff and the lobbyists. The new congress members know nothing of the legislative process and have no idea where the bodies are buried, so the staff "guide" the congress member through it all. 
Then the congress member is looking for a soft place to land once their term is up, so they cozy up to the lobbyists hoping to join up with them. 
Term limits solve nothing. >

First, Ted says, "I won't run for a third term."
Then, Ted says, "I lied! I'm running for a third term!"
First Ted says, "Donald Trump is an ignorant and dangerous con man"
Then, Ted says, "Donald Trump is the greatest President in history!
First, Ted says, "I'm a human being and I'm not the Zodiac killer"
Then, Ted says.... >

Every time I hear about Ted Cruz, I know I'm about to read something that is dignity-free. >

If you stand with Ted Cruz, you have failed in life. >

The only kind of term limits I want are the ones imposed by voters. But it's always dumb when people confront proponents of term limits like this because they show they're missing the point.  
Term limits would completely change how Congress operates, moving away from such a rigid seniority system. So of course a member of Congress who supports term limits in that system would feel different in our system, where you don't get a shot at real committee or caucus leadership until you've been there 15 years at least.  Nothing groundbreaking there. >

I'd accept term limits for unelected positions people can't be fired from, ie, federal judges. >

Seems everybody hates Ted Cruz, but he keeps getting elected. The problem isn’t awful politicians, it’s awful voters.  
People think there are 433 bad people in congress; all of them except their rep and 2 senators. >

I am all for term limits on the legislative branch but I am more concerned about the judicial branch. Supreme Court justice job for life is bs. 
It’s bad enough that there little to no oversight over how the SC functions (ie SC ruling leaks are handled by the SC), but we now have radical Christian conservatives making up the majority of the justices.
Now that rights are being taken away (abortion), we should assume it will get much worse. >

I’m surprised he can count that high >

Come on Texas.  You have a state full of millions of people.  There have to be at least 20 Republicans who aren't as slimy and spineless as Turd Tasting Ted.  How can you look at him and not just recoil in horror? >

14 years of cosplay is enough, even for Mr. Cancun. >

Really this is so stupid. The reason we need term limits is that no politician is going to do it unilaterally. >

Hold up, stop, you mean to tell me that Ted Cruz is a hypocrite?! Now that is a plot twist. >

That's Republicans for you; Rules for thee and none for me.. >

I heard this song before. This is only the first verse. 
One of my country’s (Bolivia) ex-presidents (Evo Morales) pushed for a new constitution in his first term, which included a 2 term limit for for presidents. The constitution was adopted via referendum and he later ran for a third term. When asked about this inconsistency he said his first term was under the old constitution so it did not count. Just like Cruz now. 
In the second verse of the song, Morales wanted a fourth term. So we another referendum on whether to keep constitutional term limits or not. We voted to keep them. So Morales then used the Supreme Court he had packed with lackeys to declare term limits unconstitutional and a “violation of his human rights”. >

I remember Orrin Hatch running on that same platform for like 20 terms >

Be the change you wish to see in the world, fuck-face.