politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It is true: I am highly dismissive of some kind of arbitrary cutoff based on age or term limits.
I completely understand the deep frustration with certain individuals, for example, Schumer and Pelosi. But it has little to do with their age or the number of terms they have had, in my view. Things like this should be determined, by voters, on a case by case basis.
If people are really that animated about changing the guard, then they need to do the work and show up on primaries, whether that is going so far as running themselves, or working for campaigns, or at least voting. But arbitrarily preempting the choices that others may want to vote for if they like a candidate, regardless (or perhaps because) of age/years of experience seems very unwise.
I think it absolutely has to do with the number of terms they had when it’s clear they’re there to line their pockets instead of working for the working class. They’ve had ample time to work against the creep of fascism and they failed or are complicit. The fact that they’re throwing a fit over being pushed to make way for younger and more progressive candidates just reveals their selfishness.
If a viable candidate runs in the primary, and the voters show up, then that's the opportunity to have the old guard pushed out. I don't see any problem with that and it's how it is supposed to work. What I object to is some kind of blanket rules about term limits or age limits. That removes the opportunity for voters to reward candidates they like.
There are term limits for other positions, why not here? What’s your objection to term limits?
I just don't think term limits are anywhere near the panacea some people seem to think they are. I've heard crusty old conservatives mutter "term limits" about politics ever since I can remember. Almost in the same tone I hear some of them say "cull the herd" and "tort reform" these days. It just seems like some mantra to repeat.
And now I see others outside the conservasphere sometimes taking up this mantra. It strikes me as a distraction, if I'm honest. The real problem is money and legalized bribery and I don't know what term limits would possibly accomplish, other than just having more people with no experience in these roles. There is nothing to say they could not be groomed by the likes of Thiel and just do self-dealing from minute one just because of their age or the number of terms they have had.
I've always been baffled by this heroic notion of a magical outsider, brought into politics, and simply by virtue of being an outsider that it would be a good thing. Politician is about the only endeavor where there is this odd wish to have a NON-expert in that position. The term limits mantra often seems to go hand in hand with the pining for the outsider thing. And I'll just never get it.
Being a politician is like any other field, and requires expertise. I don't see people pining for term limits on doctors, mechanics, plumbers, businessmen, dentists, etc., and I sure don't see people signing up to be the first to have their teeth drilled by an outsider, just to "shake things up".
Yeah. There are states with term limits now. They're no better governed than states without them. Term limits are one of those obvious solutions that actually solve nothing.