Jan 4th, 2019, a Constitutional Amendment was introduced to the House and Senate to enact Term Limits by 5 Republicans in both chambers. No Democrat co-sponsored, though Beto proposed it in 2013.
No Democrat co-sponsored legislation for this issue? Not quite. According to this source:
Per the article: "In April 2018, Trump met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers and discussed their support term limits for members of Congress. The lawmakers included Reps. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis.; Vicente Gonzalez, D-Texas; Jodey Arrington, R-Texas; Ro Khanna, D-Calif.; and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa."
Sadly, Mitch McConnell put the kibosh on the proposal. Again, according to the article: "In a November 2016 press conference, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., was asked if the Senate would consider legislation to limit terms. McConnell responded, "I would say we have term limits now. They're called elections. And it will not be on the agenda in the Senate. We checked with his office, and a spokesman said that McConnell's position remains the same two years on. McConnell's opposition alone makes it nearly impossible for the idea to be considered in the Senate while he's leader, which essentially puts the kibosh on the idea.
No, promise not kept. Trump hasn't tried very hard to convince McConnell to move forward with this, so until there is some action in the Senate, it's going nowhere, and as a result, the promise has not been fulfilled.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
"If I'm elected president, I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress."
Donald J. Trump - October 18, 2016 - Campaign rally in Colorado Springs to "drain the swamp."
0 ( +0 / -0 )
20+ yrs in the House and/or Senate is too much concentration of power for 1 person.
Curious that you don't mention Mitch McConnell in your argument along with quite a few others. Mitch has been in the Senate since 1985, and has been the Senate leader for the past 9 years, so how does he not make your list? After all, according to you, "20+ year in the House and/or Senate is too much concentration of power for 1 person."
1 ( +1 / -0 )
And created more jobs and especially in States where the last President neglected a once strong working class.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Um, tax cuts. Rolling back regulations. Better trade deals negotiated. These are reality.
I guess that you forgot the part where I asked for specifics. Which tax cuts? Which regulations? Which trade deals? Identify them and then show how they have had a real impact by cross-referencing credible sources or other analysis that can support your assertion.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
Wow, so down-votes instead of actual debate and discussion are a credible substitute as an answer to the questions that I raised. Sadly, this is just another pathetic failure by the hyper-partisans on these boards to engage in a meaningful discussion.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
Low unemployment goes with a booming economy.
Both of which Trump can't get credit for unless you can actually state the specific policies and legislation that he has put forth that has (in your mind) made this happen. I've asked this many times before, but still, no answer. Why is that?
1 ( +5 / -4 )
While Democrats may be in favor of open borders . . .
Factually incorrect. Here is a better accounting of the what the Democrats favor when it comes to the border:
If only Democrats could enable more illegal alien voting.
False again, and there is no credible evidence to support this assertion.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Trump's economic/tax policies have resulted in a booming economy and record low unemployment.
Which policies are you talking about? I've asked this question many times before, but I haven't gotten an answer except for empty rhetoric, so let's try this again: Please identify the exact legislation or policies that you believe Trump deserves credit for and how those policies have specifically addressed issues that have resulted in "a booming economy and record low unemployment." Remember--be specific.
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Because its not wrong to question its accuracy on numerous occasions and no I’m not saying that is completely inaccurate always, but to say that it is completely unbiased it’s not dealing with reality.
No one is saying that it is completely unbiased. Go back to my original point of saying that you should provide counter-arguments to what they have in their article. You have yet to do that here, so why not take parts of the article that you disagree with, highlight them, and then refute them using logic, reason, and credible counter-sources.
I very much do, and as always I like a nice and sensible to bed,
I have no idea what that phrase means. Please clarify.
I think it is ludicrous to just take always a one-sided liberal viewpoint of everything . . .
As opposed to always taking a one-sided right-wing viewpoint of everything . . .
. . . liberals always want to discount it adds faults or a complete outright lie
Except for all of the links to sources debunking much of what you believe. Apply your own logic here to many of the arguments you and your fellow right-wingers make (and notice I'm not using the term "Conservative" because you are not one) on a daily basis and then come back in here in tell us why we cannot have a proper discussion.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
It doesn’t get more unbiased and that supposedly news outlet. Lol
Again, you attack the source instead of refuting their points with logic and reason. All you have to offer in response is a "Lol."
Which is exactly the Liberals mantra. Lol.
Again, another juvenile deflection with a "Lol" instead of an actual coherent reply.
I have a pet rat that does a lot of research as well. As a matter of fact if you really want to talk about research then we can do the same with using Breitbart as a source.
It's obvious that you have no desire to be serious about this. As far as Breitbart goes, whenever I disagree with something that they've posted, I offer multiple counter sources instead of "Lols" and ROFLs." You cannot say the same.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
Don't expect the liberal media to put this on their screens and inform the public, it would severely undermine their targeted hatred for the US.
And don't expect an honest assessment of gun violence in the U.S. from extreme right-wingers and other 2A fanatics when it comes to this problem, especially when the source for these "facts" comes from a pro-right gun organization and then spread like manure on Fox News. A closer look as to what was just posted was not exactly accurate and was misleading. Here's a more detailed analysis of the above claim:
5 ( +5 / -0 )
This just in from the U.S. Treasury Department -
The U.S. has collected $63 billion in tariffs from China since June 2018. Oh my!
And yet the trade deficit with China keeps growing. Care to explain?
Then again, maybe this will help:
"Oh my!" indeed!
5 ( +6 / -1 )
How many NK missiles flying over Japan since Nov 2017 again? Zero?
So, the fact that no missiles have flown over Japan since November 2017 means that everything is OK and that all is safe? Really?
Tell this to the people living in Akita Prefecture where parts from missile tests after November 17, 2017 have fallen into the sea near them. How many of them would agree with you?
Tell this to the people in Hokkaido and others who live on the Japan Sea side of Honshu that because no missiles have flown over them (just near them), that there is nothing to worry about.
Lastly, try making your argument to some South Koreans. I'd love to hear their response.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
Mueller is gong to be repeatedly asked to explain when he first knew that the Hillary/Steele dossier was fake,
And you know that because . . .
and why he, and his Democrats, continued to use false documentation to persecute the man who beat Hillary.
False documentation? Really? Have you seen it? Can you show how it was false? Can you be specific? I'm guessing that you cannot.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
That’s your opinion, I respect it, but we wanted to see them both locked up, but it never happened and the same won’t happen here.
You will never see Holder or Clinton locked up because they were never indicted or convicted of a crime (despite numerous Republican attempts). Contrast that to actual criminals in the Trump administration like Manafort, Cohen, George Papadopoulos, Rick Gates, and Michael Flynn just to name a few. There are also many others who could be indicted if Congress is actually allowed to do their investigations. You have zero legal and ethical legs to stand on here.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Great! Now Barr can decide bury this thing once Mueller is done and he will be done, fork and all after he’s grilled by the Republicans, can’t wait.
As I pointed out before, no, Barr cannot decide to "bury this," but keep on hoping.
2 year history and Democrat hysteria that has failed so far....
Only in your mind. The two-year history of the Mueller investigation has already resulted in guilty pleas by several members of Trump's team plus 14 separate investigations from prosecutors from several other federal districts are still ongoing. We won't learn the results of those investigations until they have run their course.
Socialism is very much so.
Irrelevant to the issue of Mueller testifying this week. He won't be asked about socialism no matter how much you want it to be part of this issue.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
Is John Bolton the right guy to send to mediate any dispute let alone a trade dispute.
That's a rhetorical question, right?
3 ( +3 / -0 )
Mueller works and answers to Barr.
False. Mueller is no longer an employee at the DOJ, so no, he does not answer to Barr.
He said to Mueller if he felt that the President is guilty of obstruction, then why didn’t he put that in the report for recommendation? Either he is or he isn’t.
Nope. It was never Mueller's job to determine guilt or innocence. He was simply looking into possible wrongdoing according to his mandate. Guilt or innocence should be determined by Congress--not William Barr or the DOJ.
But at this point, it’s not going to go anywhere.
How do you know this? Have you spoken to any of the investigators or prosecutors involved in any of the 14 investigations? I'm guessing no.
We have been hearing that...yaaaawn....excuse me, been hearing that for two years, now all of a sudden it’s going to be different? Sure...uh-huh.....
Yes, keep telling yourself that, and then I'm sure that there will be a convenient conspiracy theory to back up your claims after things don't go your way.
64% of Americans think it’s enough now, at this point it won’t make a difference, if you hate Trump, you’ll still hate him and never voted for him, if you love Trump, then it won’t matter a bean or difference on whatever they find, you will still vote for him. People are dug in and already made up their minds.
Then you have nothing to worry about, right?
I understand, we felt the same a out Holder and Hillary, but alas...
Irrelevant to this issue since Holder and Hillary have nothing to do with Mueller's testimony next week. Pathetic attempt at deflection.
Collins is running for re-election and she’s going to be challenged next year, so of course she wants it on public record.
No, she does not. She's already feeling the heat for her pro-Kavanaugh vote, so no, a vote to ignore Trumps' voluminous crimes in the Senate is not going to help her re-election campaign.
Yes and look at California and New York how they’re policies have been absolutely atrocious, so I know if any of these fools gets in with the mandate they want, this country will never recover. Raise the hammer and sickle flag already.
Ridiculous attempt at a counter-argument with absolutely no evidence to support your assertions. You're on a sinking ship--it's time to get off.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
Ok waiting for the words “Barr misrepresented what I said” to come from Mueller’s mouth this week.
Mueller has already said it (and in writing). No waiting needed.
Although it’s kinda hard because mueller wrote down what he “said”, I’m not sure how someone else can misrepresent something I can read myself. That’s why you write it down.
It's actually pretty easy to misrepresent what someone else said, and Barr did it right after Mueller's report came out. Evidently, you weren't aware of it. No matter. Mueller will be asked about it later this week. I'm looking forward to reading your spin on it since it will most likely not be anything close to reality, and you and others will continue to make fools of yourselves in your hyper-partisan and extremist defense. Have fun.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
Barr didn’t prevent Mueller from putting anything he wanted in the actual report that we all got to read.
No, Barr just misrepresented what Mueller said, and the right-wingers and other supplicants decided to parrot what Barr said as somehow the actual truth (which Mueller has disputed). However, the actual truth will most likely come out later this week, and it won't be anything like what Barr initially said (which would then make Barr a liar and obstructionist--and this would probably open him up to obstruction of justice charges like another AG who tried to pull the same nonsense almost 35 years ago--look up John Dean if you need a reminder).
1 ( +4 / -3 )
*Where Mueller will tell us all about how Barr obstructed his "actual" findings that he didnt (sic) bother to write in the report, correct?*
Kindly explain to us how Mueller could have written about Barr's obstructionism in his report before Barr actually did the obstruction.
But not enough to re-open the case or even to bring charges, at best, they’re all a shot in the dark at this point.
You cannot re-open a case that is still open. As I said before, there are now 14 separate investigations which are ongoing that were handed off to various federal prosecutors in several districts after Mueller submitted his report. Mueller did this because those cases were not in his original mandate but still were found to be worthy of further investigation due to their criminal liability.
A bit weak.
Not at all. Given the mountain of evidence of criminal wrongdoing in both chapters of the report, Mueller will most likely tell Congress that it is up to them to do their Constitutional oversight jobs if they think that what he uncovered justifies impeachment or criminal proceedings (especially if Trump should lose re-election).
The Democrats will never, ever be able to remove this President it won’t happen, but for amusement purposes, it’s still interesting to watch.
This is not about removing this President. It is about shining a hot spotlight on all of the criminal acts that he and his corrupt cabinet have done (many of which have resulted in resignations or are currently under criminal investigation). This is about putting on record those in the Senate who will willfully ignore evidence of wrongdoing in favor of putting their party over country--which is despicable. I'm pretty sure that Susan Collins and Cory Gardner do not want their vote to be put on public record on this, especially if there is a trial in the Senate.
I hope so and with the Dems wanting to implement more socialism makes it much easier for Trump to slide into his second term.
This is the same weak-sauce argument that you made prior to the 2018 midterms. It is amazing the amnesia that most Republican and hardcore Trump supporters have after they get reminded of this but still cling to their illogical views. What is worse is that they then pivot to the "socialism" boogie-man argument that they hope will be a distraction to the blatant failures of this corrupt and criminal administration.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
Cleared of collusion.
Can’t prove that Trump obstructed a crime that Mueller found did not occur.
False. Current investigations by Congress as well as 14 current investigations say otherwise.
DOJ cleared Trump campaign.
False. The DOJ has never cleared the Trump campaign. However, William Barr has tried by putting out a series of false and misleading public statements about it. His blatant obstructionism is one of the reasons that Mueller has to testify before Congress this week.
In America no one is above OR beneath the law. Innocent until proven guilty.
That goes for those who publicly proclaim innocence before investigations have come to and end, and their conclusions have been made public.
Far from it. Until Congress gets to complete its Constitutional oversight role, this will continue to be an ongoing issue.
2 ( +5 / -3 )
Trump's America is one that has seen African-Americans' lowest-ever unemployment rate.
Please identify the specific policies or legislation that Trump has enacted which has made this possible. Be specific. Also, some collaborating evidence from a reliable source would go a long way in supporting your statement.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
But for 8 years they said nothing about it, they don’t care.
"They" have not been in Congress for the past eight years. Try to keep up.
8 ( +8 / -0 )
He does, he just hates how liberals have been dragging it through the sewer.
And his opponents hate how Trump has been dragging the entire country through the sewer.
Like I said, the argument works both ways.
6 ( +6 / -0 )
So the love-it-or-leave-it message apparently applies to everyone but Trump himself? I recall Trump campaigned on everything that was supposedly wrong with America in 2016, did he not? Therefore, this argument should work both ways: if Trump didn't love America, he should have just left instead of complaining about what was wrong with it.
11 ( +11 / -0 )