>

Oh, yes, we definitely need to ditch the two-party system, but it’s an over a century ingrained. I’m not sure that a third party could take hold in my lifetime. I like the Switzerland model. And I love the French model for the running of elections. 
I’m just pitching solutions that fit into our current model and do not include term limitations.
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. >

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. >

You want to let Biden know that? He’s going to run for re-election. At 82. 
You willing to bet he will live to 86? >

Does he think his supporters can't count? Can they? >

If he manages to pass a term limit and a trading ban, I really don’t give a fuck. It’s time to rein in some of these people. >

If it wasn’t for double standards - republicans would have no standards. >

Honestly? If he successfully got the limits in place while in a third term? I don’t fucking care. Grandfather his ass. He will lose the seat eventually on a long enough timeline. I hate the dipshit and we all know he’s a hypocrite. 
Keep your eye on the fucking ball, this is one of the very few things I find myself in agreement with the fucking asshole that microwaves fish in an office environment. >

Term limits are a disaster and empower lobbyists (who are not term limited). There are plenty of studies that compare states with legislative term limits and those without and all find the same thing. The legislature is full of generalists who need to rely more on lobbyists for instititional knowledge. Additionally, the executive branch becomes more powerful. >

Texans: please flush twice in 2024 so this clown never holds office again. >

I hate Ted Cruz as much as anybody else, but this is not the hypocrisy “gotcha” that a lot of people seem to think it is. He says he wants to stay as long as the “bad guys” get to stay. It actually makes sense, and I don’t think it is hypocritical at all. Don’t let your hatred for these morons make us also look like morons. >

"I'm submitting a new rule to stop people from doing exactly what I'm attempting to do right now", isn't really the best position, though, right? >

Probably not, but his reasoning actually makes sense from his perspective. That’s all I’m saying. If you’re in an abusive relationship you would most likely stay until you know the kids are safe. I’m not saying he is right. I’m just saying let’s focus on hating him for the many other reasons he deserves. >

This guy is an idiot, plain and simple. >

I'm pretty sure his terribly written bill accidentally limits Senators to three terms instead of two anyway.

No person who has served 2 terms as a Senator shall be eligible for election or appointment to the Senate. 

A second term Senator will not have served two terms by election day and should therefore be eligible to be elected a third time. >

I think you’re right. The constitutional amendment is written differently - it limits the number of times that you can be elected. >

Rules for thee... Not for me!! >

Fake it till ya make it!
....
And then fake it some more, what the hell! >

Epic piece of shit Ted Cruz. >

Is he buddying up with Xi and Putin ? >

Cruz has been saying this since at least 2016 and only says it because he knows it would never pass >

Rafael is such a 💩 I’d love to see him finally get his ass kicked and forgotten about >

What a dipshit again. >

He’s a fucking dipshit. I am being sophomoric, and I am okay with that. >

My guy also wants to be president despite being born in Canada. The rules don’t apply to Rafael. >

And he’ll keep running until he it gets passed no matter how many terms it take. >

Off topic—- Does he shave from under his bottom lip to the point of his chin? Or is his beard that ugly on its own? >

His arguments goes like this: this only applies to new senators that got elected after the bill passed. I’m grandfather-in so it does not applies to me... >

Cruz is a dick, but that's not a reason to be dishonest.  He did not make that argument. >

Good for thee, not for me.  The politicians motto >

Lying Ted can serve his third term in Cancun. >

Isn’t he on his traditional vacation when the people of Texas are suffering due to the failing power infrastructure? >

Do y’all want Dan Patrick in the Senate that bad? Lol >

Rules for thee but not for me >

There are a million reasons to despise the legitimate human codenamed Ted Cruz, but this really isn't one of them.
I don't care if it's a republican or a democrat, it would be moronic to give up your seat and give your opposition a chance to pick it up just to posture up on something like this. >

I think the title is a little clickbait. He clearly stated that if the bill is passed he will comply just that until it’s passed he will continue to run as he is allowed to. 
Basically he doesn’t want to hamstring himself by saying he will step down no matter what after 2 terms. >

He is a complete piece of shit and if he could limit everyone ELSE to two terms while letting himself seek an infinite amount of terms he definitely would but I see no reason why he should step down and not run again since his bill is a complete bullshit farce and will never pass because most politicians will never vote to limit themselves. >

Term limits, fine.  There needs to be an age limit.  Half these MFers couldn’t drive their own cars due to senility and we trust them to rationally weigh matters like net neutrality?  Boomers belong in retirement homes, not congress. >

Tell that to the Democratic Party who is behind running an 82 year old dude against DeSantis lmfao.  
Hubris. >

I can’t wait to applaud his disappearance from politics in what ever shape, fashion or form it takes. >

“Rules for thee but not for me” >

Can he just fuck off already? >

“Rules for thee, not for me” is the core of the GOP’s philosophy. >

Y’all crazy with this “rules for thee, not for me” nonsense. If this is truly something he believes in, which I can’t say for sure he does, of course he should run for a 3rd term to continue trying to get this law passed. >

Yea ???? It’s called politics. You can’t advance policy change (term limits on senators) if you are not a senator lmao. It’s like when progressive house members try passing anti-campaign donation policy whilst their party takes tens of millions from Google like what ?? XD >

Run for the border Teddy it’s about to snow in Texas. >

Turd Cruz 2024! >

2 terms seems too short in my opinion. 12 years in a job, particularly government, isn't that crazy. Why not make it four so that it limits the worst offenders but doesn't gimp the government by causing constant turnover. >

12 seems like a good stint. Especially considering senators who were in the House or other government before. >

Third and Forth for himself >

It’s good to want things, Ted. >

No no, see, third terms are fine for those who are oviparous! Like human senator Ted Cruz. >

He said on Face the Nation that he would stop his campaign for a third term if his constitutional amendment passed. >

What a joke..."hmm, I haven't been in the headlines in a while, maybe I'll try to amend the constitution." He knows this won't pass, what an absolute asshole. >

Didn't this dude wanted to be president? Now he is happy just being a bootlicker for Trump or DeSantis? >

Senators should be limited. Ted Cruz should also disappear. >

Ted Cruz is a stain on Texas. >

Lead by example, Ted. >

Dog whistling to the degenerates who talked about that issue in the 80’s & 90’s. Scraping the bottom of the barrel for dummy votes. >

Almost everyone has said this, but once they get in office they never bring it up again. >

He’s like “case in point, me.” >

Who fucken voted for this douche in the first place. >

Some of these politicians remind me of villains. >

Cruz has a Porfirian ability to absorb hypocrisy. >

Bravo to The Guardian for rendering my favorite headline of the week. >

He’d make a great mayor of Cancun >

something really bugs me: Cruz was born in Canada and that disqualifies him to run for President, but somehow her ran anyway >

The attack ad writes itself. 
We’ve granted Ted’s wish and given him his two terms. Now let’s let him spend as much time in Cancun as he wants. >

Yet none of his supporters will remember that this is what winnie the pooh did. He just wrote a new constitution and gave himself a term for life. The republican base is sooo disillusioned that the republicans can literally do anything and they will just keep hating their neighbors for being born different. >

Time to flush this turd >

I bet Teddy boy gets two scoops of ice cream too! >

I think term limits are a lazy solution. If someone becomes a senator at thirty, and they're doing a great job, why boot them out when they're just 42? Studies suggest that it takes two years for a new employee to become productive at a job, and I imagine being a Senator has a similar if not greater productivity curve. I'd much rather that we have a maximum electable age (maybe 65, so nobody will be there past the age of 71,) and instead focus on motivating and educating eligible voters, limiting gerrymandering, and campaign finance reform, because those are the things that keep the duds in place longer than they should be there.
I get the impression that a lot of the people who vote for Ted Cruz don't actually like Ted Cruz, but he's a Republican, and they always vote Republican. I think leveling the playing field on campaign spending might give a moderate Republican a decent chance of primarying him. >

I think a maximum electable age, motivating & educating voters, limiting gerrymandering, etc. etc. are all band-aids on a very obsolete two party system, and its FPTP winner-take-all elections.
Most voters stay loyal to their values and their end of the political spectrum. Consequently, most US voters have only one party to vote for. That's a monopoly! With all the negative effects (e.g. complacency, low quality but high costs, corruption, entrenched and very bureaucratic practices, very low "customer" satisfaction, etc. etc.)
That's why, the US political system is in dire need of overhaul and updates.
Take Switzerland, for example. Their population is 4 years older (42 vs 38), but their House and their Senate are, in average, 10 years younger than in America (respectively: 48 vs 58 --- 54 vs 64). And 26% of their House are under 40 (only 6% in the US House).
How do they do it? Multi-party proportional representation! Basically, left wing voters have 5-9 political parties to choose from in their political spectrum (same thing for center voters, and for right wing voters). Their federal parliament (i.e. their Congress) has now 11 political parties, and there are dozens more in local and state parliaments.
Thus competition is fierce! Complacent, uninventive parties tend to die-off relatively quickly (3 of the 4 biggest parties were created after 1980!). Politicans tend to retire earlier than in the US (they simply can't keep up anymore).
Most of the democratic world has moved on to proportional representation. It's time the US and UK did that too.