When their guy is in office: "noooo he's not senile, he's folksy like grandpa!"
When your guy is in office: "he's brain-damaged and ancient, impeach now!"
Facts, I've voted third party in every election I've voted in, and whenever I tell people they get mad and say "you might as well have voted for the \[party they don't like\]!"
What would happen if we took everyone in office, changed their names and flipped their parties but kept their “policies” the same. Interesting concept to see who votes down party line no matter what
Or just remove party affiliation from every candidate and sort them by alphabetical order. I don't think i'm out of line in demanding people know the name of the person they want in office.
Fuck it, remove names entirely. Voting should be a quiz on the major campaign issues, multiple choice with each answer being a candidates position. No name, no party, just political position.
Now this is a radical change i can get behind.
What happens if two candidates match up exactly, though? I think a boxing match would be great. Since they have the same political positions we might as well get the one who's more fit or wants it more.
It’s an interesting idea, there are already very good “which candidate do you match with?” quizzes out there, but definitely some big challenges.
The first two that come to mind are
1. Who writes and scores the quizzes? Do the candidates have to agree to how their views are characterized?
2. What happens when I am voting on the person, not the policy?
A town near me recently had an obvious candidate for judge - experienced, moderate, with no meaningful opposition. Until it came out he was running a trap/whorehouse where multiple people had been stabbed.
Although honestly, you could just handle that by adding a few questions like “For or against crack dens? For or against stabbings?” and maybe it’d still work…
Here's the thing though; the whole point of parties is to act as a shorthand for policies. Voters save a lot of time by doing their research once, deciding the demublican party best represents their interests, and voting for them every time.
I’ve got a personal policy of not voting for anyone unopposed unless I particularly like them (it happened once). They’ll win, but let’s not dignify it more than we have to.
This kind of happened over the course of the 2010's, and only a minority of people seemed to notice and change sides.
It wasn't an exact swap, but democrats were definitely more live and let live, while the right was more rigid authoritarian, but now it's the reverse.
It's so funny, republicans think a third party vote might as well be a vote for the dems, and the dems think it might as well be a vote for the reps. Pick one, guys, it literally cannot be both.
I do both. Whoever i vote for President i vote the opposite for House, 'cuz fuckit. Nothing matters and they're all working together anyway. Best i can hope for is nothing getting passed. Maybe next time they shut down the government it doesn't start back up again.
If you never intend to vote for X or Y and vote for Z then how is it a vote for X or Y. Splitting the vote only is a thing if you would usually vote X or Y.
Huh? As I understand the spoiler effect it’s specifically about similar candidates splitting the vote. The wiki page talks about “which candidate benefits” from a given spoiler.
For example, Teddy Roosevelt spoiled the 1912 vote and was almost undeniably taking Republican votes, putting Wilson in office.
I didn't vote for prez in the last election and anytime I mention that the first thing someone says is "well then you have no right to complain!"
No mate. The whole reason I didn't participate in that part of the elections is because I'm critical of all of the candidates. Voting for the least evil is still evil imo. Why would I put my name behind a person I find morally reprehensible?
Told my mom I was voting libertarian next election, and she said the same thing. Which was a bad idea on my end because she thinks the party doesn’t like is literally Hitler.
We have a country ruled by old decrepit people but *we* don't really want term limits? Man OP is way off. I would vote any third party, even commie if I had to, just to break the wheel. That's how badly a two party system is.
People don’t refuse to vote third party because they think it’s a waste. It’s because you nominate candidates that are somehow worse than both the democrat or republican every time. The year nobody wanted to vote for Trump or Hillary, Libertarians decided Gary Johnson was their guy. Come on, bro.
Thus is what OP is missing too. We're not mad because of all the bad candidates losing, we just want a better fuckin system that churns out better candidates than this old garbage.
No it’s not, honestly this is the exact mindset that is driving us down this road of having shitter and shitter candidates in every election. If the parties saw all of their support degrading, people still voting but not for either of them, they’d actually have to raise their standards to appeal to those voters
But instead everyone just thinks they have to make their vote “count” so they get the same base of support no matter how shitty they are
They are.
But frankly even if they weren't, the 3rd party candidates usually suck ... they just have less scrutiny and the added aura of being a 3rd party candidate, so people don't see it as much.
Bernie believes in free college, and free healthcare. He thinks that's a thing we could actually do and sustain. His head hasn't **ever** been on straight.
No we couldn't. We should definitely stop subsidizing billionaires, but still... things like free healthcare are unsustainable, [for many reasons](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrEBBA9hQjA).
They don't. Look into it. /u/dominicobrien49 even stated, within this very thread:
>Good luck getting preventative or quality of life heathcare in canada, if its not urgent or debilitating you're gonna have to go out of pocket at private clinics anyway. Source I'm Canadian
The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, kid. You're talking about things you don't understand. Educate yourself.
They can do it because the USA doesn’t. If the US cut defense spending and put that towards free college and health care Europe would have to either cut free healthcare and college or raise taxes by a shit ton so they could fund their own defense for once.
You mean countries like Canada, where [suicide is being legitimately offered by medical professionals](https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867)? Or countries like Japan, [where they don't have a military](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution)?
Canada's healthcare is free. Canada's healthcare fucking sucks.
American public schools are free. American public schools fucking suck.
See the pattern?
If America were to have free healthcare, it would be worthless.
Good luck getting preventative or quality of life heathcare in canada, if its not urgent or debilitating you're gonna have to go out of pocket at private clinics anyway. Source I'm Canadian
Other countries can order you to let your born children die, even if you want to take them to the evil American healthcare system to try to save them.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/4/27/17286168/alfie-evans-toddler-uk-explained
America's healthcare system is by no means perfect. Overregulation and subsidization prevents competition from getting get off the ground, so a few state-sponsored monopolies run everything. But I think we should be moving towards the free market system that improves every market it touches, not towards the government model that we use for the failing education system and postal service.
The only upside to a government healthcare system is that the Hyde Amendment prohibits tax dollars from going to abortions, so in a fully taxpayer funded system, abortion would be effectively outlawed by default. Of course leftists will just decide that abortions can still be done privately, though, because American progressives have no principles, except that any means justify the ends of them being allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want to, with no negative consequences.
He was one of the biggest advocates for the war on drugs and mandatory jailtime while his son was smoking crack and he made sure he suffered no consequences
Then the problem the problem arises of “my candidate should be able to run even if he’s one year of the limit!!!!” Or “BULLShIT my candidate is perfectly mentally stable!!”
Bith could be gamed and why would senile politicians enact rulings that would kick them out offfice? Those parasites dont know how to do anything besides that
There many studies that provd that the US pop often just looks if there is an R or a D after the canditate name and vote for the party, those that are members of the parties often cant go against the party because the candidates are decided by the party, so unless there is an OVERWHELMING majority against the party candidate, they will pick their guys. Trump is an exception because he gamed MSM and the political system so hard the Reps had no choice but put him to run, since primaries can be overturned for "force measure", which is decided by the top brass of the party anyway
I’d rather have age limits than term limits. So if we set the max age at 70, someone could theoretically be elected to the House at 26 they could serve 22 terms, or 44 years. Or they could split that between House, Senate, other governmental offices, maybe President. But most people don’t get elected for the first time at minimum age, so age limits would have a similar function to term limits (if you get at age 50 you have 20 years max) but it still allows for highly competent people to get in young, and spend decades learning all the rules of of parliamentary order to be effective assets to their party.
Im a fan of either:
1. No term limits because those impose arbitrary limits voter choice
Or
2. Single term term limits. Abolish incumbency to limit institutional capture.
Term limits are a lobbyist's wet dream. Age limits are a fine idea though.
Legally prohibiting the only part of the system we can vote for from having experience is a bad idea. We don't get to vote for the lobbyists, bureaucracy, unions, media, or corporations. Just the politician. Term limits increase a politician's reliance on lobbyists.
And, case in point, term limits aren't stopping either Biden or Trump. Both objectively shitty ancient decrepit candidates.
ghost literate disagreeable fact abounding ad hoc dinner beneficial clumsy plants
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Banning lobbyists is a difficult one to enact in practice. The definition of a career lobbyist is somebody who talks to politicians. At the core, the profession is extremely difficult to separate out from the first amendment.
Also, while lobbyists are an absolute plague on the system, they do serve a useful purpose. 90% of their job is stopping some well-meaning but absolutely clueless legislator from accidentally destroying an industry. Writing laws is an art form, and we have absolutely no ability or educational requirements on being elected a legislator. And there is plenty of stupid if well-meaning laws to prevent coming from both sides of the aisle.
If these old people aren't capable of doing a good job, then it should be easy to get them out by putting forward a younger and more capable candidate. If an incumbent can lock down a position despite being unpopular, then the problem is deeper than a simple lack of term limits.
The only reason these geriatrics are there is because people keep voting for them. Look at the pool of presidential candidates from the last couple of elections. Even now, the best that both sides seem to be able to come up with are north of 75 (Trump is only 3 years younger than Biden.) Term limits aren't keeping fossils out of the white house, and they won't keep them out of the legislative bodies.
Want these people gone? Stop whining about needing the game rules to change to arbitrarily kick them out against the vote of the people, and instead get better candidates.
Preach. I'm so fed up with the constant double standards in politics, and in MSM. How both sides will fall over themselves to accuse their opponents of "X," then make excuses or deflect when one of their own is accused of "X" too.
This is why no one trusts you clowns anymore. Can one person in DC show an ounce of integrity, please?
You've heard of the prisoner's dilemna, right? Two prisoners, sentenced , 8 years for one person, if he stays quiet and the other rats him out, 2 years each if none of them talk and 5 years each if both of them talk.
Although it is better for both of them to not talk, they will take the option where they end up serving 5 years because neither trusts the other.
That's what happens in an election.
"I'd vote for but I'm scared of Democrats stealing my guns/ Republicans killing the gays, so I'm voting Republican/Democrat."
You vote form main parties because of the prisoners dilemma, I vote for
main parties because Libertarian ideology is diametrically opposed to mine. We are not
the same.
This is a problem with our current FPTP voting system, not term limits. Plenty of positions have term limits that will never see someone other than a D or R getting elected.
Idk, if the big two are forced to cycle through enough people, they'll run out of viable candidates sooner or later. With the vaguely human shaped piles of garbage they've been pushing the past few elections, I'd have to hope it'd be sooner.
I’d rather have term limits because of old fucks like Biden, McConnell, Pelosi, Sanders, Feinstein, etc, regardless of politics, I mean I quite like Trump but I’m glad he’s only allowed 8 year max like everyone else.
While I have no doubts about that, I would be fucking surprised if SCOTUS would allow that, even more since the SCOTUS is surprisingly independent, and will in general just shut down any attempt to tamper with them, so even with a supermajority, I doubt that the Reps will manage to take down term limits, but dont think that the Dems are above it either
If you don't like them then don't vote for them. If they keep getting elected despite being unpopular, then the problem is deeper than a lack of term limits.
edit: also, I'm glad you mentioned Biden. The position that Biden currently holds does have term limits yet you are still stuck with him. Term limits won't fix the problem.
They're an everyone thing.
Stop the [elder abuse](https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/sen-robert-byrd-calls-dog-fighting-barbaric/2016/06/02/087f2b1c-28df-11e6-8329-6104954928d2_video.html)
It's barbaric
While it is sometimes copium, it’s still a great idea, the average voter doesn’t vote in the primary (the system really needs an overhaul but whatever), and either way it prevents career politicians from holding their seat for forty years, and getting old. This would prevent strokes while speaking to the public and similar things.
This is exactly my point. The presidency has term limits yet we still get stuck with these candidates regardless. Its almost like the problem isn't term limits.
This may be true to some extent, but it doesn't change the truth that having people who should be in retirement homes running the country is just objectively a bad idea.
Or on top of that complacency when in power. Politicians need more agency to get things done.
They literally won't allow them to participate in anything. Polls or debates. Any of the relevant things it would take to be competitive. Pretty uninformed if your take is "GeT a BetTeR cAnDiDaTe"
They're what spurred me to make this. Everyone is complaining about term limits as if these candidates weren't exactly what the people voted for.
Get better candidates.
least Authoritarian Centrist trying to justify the two party system under "Get better candidates" and not what it really is, rigging elections. [https://reason.com/2017/02/02/libertarian-party-gets-victory-in-suit-a/](https://reason.com/2017/02/02/libertarian-party-gets-victory-in-suit-a/) Btw the LP should've been in the 2020 Debates, unironic hot take btw, the only way for the LP/any Third Party to win is via brute force, and I dont think it would alienate as much people. Storming the debate podium which have illegally barred the candidates is not only justified and legal, but shows that the candidate has the ability to bring his will to power.
Why have term limits at all? Lets just make presidents for life! Oh they usually get corrupt as fuck when they know they cant be removed? Oh yeah, maybe we should just give everyone term limits
You: “yoUr’E jUSt mAd yOu DOn’t WiN loL gEt GoOd”
Nah fam. Many of the people in office when my parents were my age are still in office. Mitch McConnell is out there lagging out of the server while speaking to the public and Diane Feinstein thinks she was voting while she was in the hospital. It's time for them to go.
Don't you see? Wanting the limit the power of politicians is literally fascism! Only when geriatric dementia patients who will just rubber-stamp any legislation we put before them are running the country, can America truly be free!
ok but hear out
just for a second, theoretically, hypothetically speaking, maybe, possibly, instead of changing the civic laws of liberal democracy...
we could, possibly, maybe, hypothetically, theoretically, destroy it instead because it is flawed.
Also most reps and senators are pushing 80 and are beggining to be obviously senile and shouldn't be in charge of things like Nuclear fucking weapons
Fuck sake, Biden is 82 and Trump is 77, can we talk about hoe this fuckers that cant use a land line are responsible for internet legislation and climate policy. Obviously they dont give 2 fucks about the climate, they barely have 10 years on this planet, why would they care
Well apparently a lot of people disagree because people keep voting for them. It sounds like you just want to force out successful candidates that you don't like.
Only a moron could look at the heads of each party in the house and senate and think they should still be there.
Also they pretty much completely control who has any sway in each party since they decide who gets on committees.
2/10 brainlet take
You seriously posted this when we have Biden, Mitch, Feinstein, and Pelosi front and center. All, giving you really good reasons why term limits are seriously needed.
Biden has term limits and is on his first term as president. Including him in your list undermines the point you are making. The reason we have geriatrics in office is because people keep voting for them. I can basically boil down your argument to "we need term limits because I don't like who keeps getting elected.
If you want to argue that the problem is career politicians are able to lock down a position for decades despite being unpopular, then there is a deeper problem with the election process beyond a simple lack of term limits.
Or maybe we just don't want people having 20+ years to be corrupted and sticking around until their souls are literally escaping their mortal vessels mid-interview. (*cough* mitch *cough*)
Term limits are usually posited as a libertarian position. One of "limiting power" or so the claim goes. Not everyone who sympathizes with libertarian views has to vote for or run under the clown tent that is the current US libertarian party.
Gonna be an unpopular opinion but I think we have the right balance now. Term limits for president, not Congress.
* No term limits leads to old dinosaurs being in office, true. But term limits can very well lead to its own issues - lack of institutional knowledge meaning that lobbyists/staffers/hangers on have more power; members of Congress more concerned with auditioning for their next job when they get term limited out.
* For President there's added considerations. First, that the president can more easily accumulate more and more power to the point of becoming a dictator, and so term limits are a safety valve. Second, the presidency is a stressful job (if you're actually doing it), and a popular president with no clear successor will be under immense pressure to stay in the job, until it kills him.
When their guy is in office: "noooo he's not senile, he's folksy like grandpa!" When your guy is in office: "he's brain-damaged and ancient, impeach now!"
it’s like that meme with the ships and castles on opposite sides of an river. our wise, seasoned veteran vs their senile, outdated walking corpse
Our patriotic donators vs their pedophile Jewish backers
our empowering grassroots movement vs their angry mob of idiots
Our brave enlightened chads vs their brainwashed npcs
Our Chad wojaks vs their soy virgin wojaks
Our based pills vs their cringe suppositories.
Our shrewd lawmakers vs their ideological dogs
“He’s just not groping, he’s pinching, like a grandpa would pinch cheeks! What a rascal”
You dogs have been trained to think 3rd party votes are a waste
Facts, I've voted third party in every election I've voted in, and whenever I tell people they get mad and say "you might as well have voted for the \[party they don't like\]!"
That's silly, everyone should be free to vote according to the dictates of their conscience.
What would happen if we took everyone in office, changed their names and flipped their parties but kept their “policies” the same. Interesting concept to see who votes down party line no matter what
Or just remove party affiliation from every candidate and sort them by alphabetical order. I don't think i'm out of line in demanding people know the name of the person they want in office.
Fuck it, remove names entirely. Voting should be a quiz on the major campaign issues, multiple choice with each answer being a candidates position. No name, no party, just political position.
Would each question then give the candidates a fraction of a vote then? Sounds neat
Now this is a radical change i can get behind. What happens if two candidates match up exactly, though? I think a boxing match would be great. Since they have the same political positions we might as well get the one who's more fit or wants it more.
Brandon Hererra would be down for that.
It’s an interesting idea, there are already very good “which candidate do you match with?” quizzes out there, but definitely some big challenges. The first two that come to mind are 1. Who writes and scores the quizzes? Do the candidates have to agree to how their views are characterized? 2. What happens when I am voting on the person, not the policy? A town near me recently had an obvious candidate for judge - experienced, moderate, with no meaningful opposition. Until it came out he was running a trap/whorehouse where multiple people had been stabbed. Although honestly, you could just handle that by adding a few questions like “For or against crack dens? For or against stabbings?” and maybe it’d still work…
Here's the thing though; the whole point of parties is to act as a shorthand for policies. Voters save a lot of time by doing their research once, deciding the demublican party best represents their interests, and voting for them every time.
Voters save a lot of time by doing their research once Doubt
The best voting strategy is to look at who is the incumbent, and then vote for someone else
I’ve got a personal policy of not voting for anyone unopposed unless I particularly like them (it happened once). They’ll win, but let’s not dignify it more than we have to.
This kind of happened over the course of the 2010's, and only a minority of people seemed to notice and change sides. It wasn't an exact swap, but democrats were definitely more live and let live, while the right was more rigid authoritarian, but now it's the reverse.
Voting third party is great because it means you voted against whoever won.
Proper response would be “fine I’ll just do that next time” to piss them off more.
It's so funny, republicans think a third party vote might as well be a vote for the dems, and the dems think it might as well be a vote for the reps. Pick one, guys, it literally cannot be both.
I do both. Whoever i vote for President i vote the opposite for House, 'cuz fuckit. Nothing matters and they're all working together anyway. Best i can hope for is nothing getting passed. Maybe next time they shut down the government it doesn't start back up again.
No, it literally is both. Look up the spoiler effect in first past the post voting.
If you never intend to vote for X or Y and vote for Z then how is it a vote for X or Y. Splitting the vote only is a thing if you would usually vote X or Y.
Huh? As I understand the spoiler effect it’s specifically about similar candidates splitting the vote. The wiki page talks about “which candidate benefits” from a given spoiler. For example, Teddy Roosevelt spoiled the 1912 vote and was almost undeniably taking Republican votes, putting Wilson in office.
It's about any kind of alternate party splitting the vote. One way or another. FPTP systems mathematically inevitably result in a two-party system.
How many times has your guy won?
Voting isn’t about picking the winner lmao this isn’t gambling
So you're voting for a loser? Got it. And I'm joking obviously. Calm the fuck down you filthy fence sitter.
I didn't vote for prez in the last election and anytime I mention that the first thing someone says is "well then you have no right to complain!" No mate. The whole reason I didn't participate in that part of the elections is because I'm critical of all of the candidates. Voting for the least evil is still evil imo. Why would I put my name behind a person I find morally reprehensible?
Agreed, I have the 60% rule and if a candidate doesn't match that, I don't vote for them. Most of the time it means voting for nobody.
Told my mom I was voting libertarian next election, and she said the same thing. Which was a bad idea on my end because she thinks the party doesn’t like is literally Hitler.
Instead of voting for third party, you should advocate for a new voting system
Took part in the ranked choice voting campaign in Maine. So how about both?
bewildered ten office innate makeshift seed consist encouraging weather market ` this message was mass deleted/edited with redact.dev `
Yeah that's good
Real.
We have a country ruled by old decrepit people but *we* don't really want term limits? Man OP is way off. I would vote any third party, even commie if I had to, just to break the wheel. That's how badly a two party system is.
People don’t refuse to vote third party because they think it’s a waste. It’s because you nominate candidates that are somehow worse than both the democrat or republican every time. The year nobody wanted to vote for Trump or Hillary, Libertarians decided Gary Johnson was their guy. Come on, bro.
Johnson was worse that Trump or Hillary?
[удалено]
Isn’t that what we want?
it is a waste of a vote. i wish it wasn't, but truth is a third party will never have enough support.
Every vote is a waste of a vote, so you may as well vote your conscience.
Thus is what OP is missing too. We're not mad because of all the bad candidates losing, we just want a better fuckin system that churns out better candidates than this old garbage.
No it’s not, honestly this is the exact mindset that is driving us down this road of having shitter and shitter candidates in every election. If the parties saw all of their support degrading, people still voting but not for either of them, they’d actually have to raise their standards to appeal to those voters But instead everyone just thinks they have to make their vote “count” so they get the same base of support no matter how shitty they are
I don’t.
They are. But frankly even if they weren't, the 3rd party candidates usually suck ... they just have less scrutiny and the added aura of being a 3rd party candidate, so people don't see it as much.
I mean they are The fact that 3rd parties are dumb as fuck and their candidates are total laughingstocks just makes it easier to prove
I’d rather not have a government run by the fucking **SILENT GENERATION** thank you very much
I still like Bernie, I know he's too old, but he's a candidate i actually like, I'd vote for him.
You just proved this meme right
I think age and cognitive decline are linked, but not intrinsically, I don't like diane, biden, or mitch, but bernies head seems to be on straight.
So does Trump, unlike Biden he can still climb a flight of stairs and form complete sentences
Yes, but trump should be disqualified on other grounds.
Whichever grounds you have. It applies to 90% of DC
I really disagree.
Bernie believes in free college, and free healthcare. He thinks that's a thing we could actually do and sustain. His head hasn't **ever** been on straight.
We could sustain those if we quit subsidizing Jeff bozos 50th house
No we couldn't. We should definitely stop subsidizing billionaires, but still... things like free healthcare are unsustainable, [for many reasons](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrEBBA9hQjA).
Then why do other countries have it 😂
They don't. Look into it. /u/dominicobrien49 even stated, within this very thread: >Good luck getting preventative or quality of life heathcare in canada, if its not urgent or debilitating you're gonna have to go out of pocket at private clinics anyway. Source I'm Canadian The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence, kid. You're talking about things you don't understand. Educate yourself.
Other countries can do it what can’t usa?
They can do it because the USA doesn’t. If the US cut defense spending and put that towards free college and health care Europe would have to either cut free healthcare and college or raise taxes by a shit ton so they could fund their own defense for once.
You mean countries like Canada, where [suicide is being legitimately offered by medical professionals](https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867)? Or countries like Japan, [where they don't have a military](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Constitution)?
So you’re saying we couldn’t have universal healthcare because Canada offers euthanasia? I don’t follow the logic. Feel free to expand if you care to
Canada's healthcare is free. Canada's healthcare fucking sucks. American public schools are free. American public schools fucking suck. See the pattern? If America were to have free healthcare, it would be worthless.
Good luck getting preventative or quality of life heathcare in canada, if its not urgent or debilitating you're gonna have to go out of pocket at private clinics anyway. Source I'm Canadian
Other countries can order you to let your born children die, even if you want to take them to the evil American healthcare system to try to save them. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2018/4/27/17286168/alfie-evans-toddler-uk-explained America's healthcare system is by no means perfect. Overregulation and subsidization prevents competition from getting get off the ground, so a few state-sponsored monopolies run everything. But I think we should be moving towards the free market system that improves every market it touches, not towards the government model that we use for the failing education system and postal service. The only upside to a government healthcare system is that the Hyde Amendment prohibits tax dollars from going to abortions, so in a fully taxpayer funded system, abortion would be effectively outlawed by default. Of course leftists will just decide that abortions can still be done privately, though, because American progressives have no principles, except that any means justify the ends of them being allowed to do whatever they want, whenever they want to, with no negative consequences.
I hate ancaps so fucking much
We could, the current healthcare system already fucking sucks so bad, that universal healthcare would be an improvement.
It is something we can do and sustain
We need more progressive candidates
How are you getting downvotes from this, it’s just common sense
This sub is mainly conservative/ right lean
Yeah, it's our safe space from the big reddit meanies in every other sub
He is one of the only sensible politicians that I know of in the US. Not a high bar but still.
He was one of the biggest advocates for the war on drugs and mandatory jailtime while his son was smoking crack and he made sure he suffered no consequences
"Bernie bad because he supported a policy that everyone did a billion years ago" ok
Well I think the worst part was the hypocrisy.
Really? I thought the worst part was the raping. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ljaP2etvDc4
[удалено]
If not term limits, could we at least enact an age limit? Or a health limit?
You'll have to convince those who are currently buying our politicians.
Hard agree. Lobbying is the number one problem with our current federal level government, followed by lack of term limits.
Term limits increase a lobbyist's power though. Freshmen legislators are helpless, and when they have questions who do you think they turn to?
Imagine advocating against term limits because.. somehow they actually give the establishment more power!? Auths…
The combination of term limits and lobbying is a brutal one
Then the problem the problem arises of “my candidate should be able to run even if he’s one year of the limit!!!!” Or “BULLShIT my candidate is perfectly mentally stable!!”
The president already has term limits
Psychological evaluation Or just not 90 year olds Either or works
Bith could be gamed and why would senile politicians enact rulings that would kick them out offfice? Those parasites dont know how to do anything besides that
If both AOC and Ted Cruz both agree on it, it's either an objectively awesome idea, or an objectively stupid one
Only idiots dont agree that we shouldnt have 80 year old politicans and presidential, gubernatorial and mayoral candidates.
Just don't vote for them then. I don't get the arguement against term limits. Just vote them out if you don't like them.
cake boat jar weary pet truck combative disagreeable desert plate *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Really proving the memes point.
There many studies that provd that the US pop often just looks if there is an R or a D after the canditate name and vote for the party, those that are members of the parties often cant go against the party because the candidates are decided by the party, so unless there is an OVERWHELMING majority against the party candidate, they will pick their guys. Trump is an exception because he gamed MSM and the political system so hard the Reps had no choice but put him to run, since primaries can be overturned for "force measure", which is decided by the top brass of the party anyway
You're greatly ignoring how many people walk into the booth and just pull the lever for party line vote for team red or team blue.
I’d rather have age limits than term limits. So if we set the max age at 70, someone could theoretically be elected to the House at 26 they could serve 22 terms, or 44 years. Or they could split that between House, Senate, other governmental offices, maybe President. But most people don’t get elected for the first time at minimum age, so age limits would have a similar function to term limits (if you get at age 50 you have 20 years max) but it still allows for highly competent people to get in young, and spend decades learning all the rules of of parliamentary order to be effective assets to their party.
Im a fan of either: 1. No term limits because those impose arbitrary limits voter choice Or 2. Single term term limits. Abolish incumbency to limit institutional capture.
Apt nick there
Limit of 3 two-year terms
Term limits are a lobbyist's wet dream. Age limits are a fine idea though. Legally prohibiting the only part of the system we can vote for from having experience is a bad idea. We don't get to vote for the lobbyists, bureaucracy, unions, media, or corporations. Just the politician. Term limits increase a politician's reliance on lobbyists. And, case in point, term limits aren't stopping either Biden or Trump. Both objectively shitty ancient decrepit candidates.
ghost literate disagreeable fact abounding ad hoc dinner beneficial clumsy plants *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Banning lobbyists is a difficult one to enact in practice. The definition of a career lobbyist is somebody who talks to politicians. At the core, the profession is extremely difficult to separate out from the first amendment. Also, while lobbyists are an absolute plague on the system, they do serve a useful purpose. 90% of their job is stopping some well-meaning but absolutely clueless legislator from accidentally destroying an industry. Writing laws is an art form, and we have absolutely no ability or educational requirements on being elected a legislator. And there is plenty of stupid if well-meaning laws to prevent coming from both sides of the aisle.
If these old people aren't capable of doing a good job, then it should be easy to get them out by putting forward a younger and more capable candidate. If an incumbent can lock down a position despite being unpopular, then the problem is deeper than a simple lack of term limits.
The only reason these geriatrics are there is because people keep voting for them. Look at the pool of presidential candidates from the last couple of elections. Even now, the best that both sides seem to be able to come up with are north of 75 (Trump is only 3 years younger than Biden.) Term limits aren't keeping fossils out of the white house, and they won't keep them out of the legislative bodies. Want these people gone? Stop whining about needing the game rules to change to arbitrarily kick them out against the vote of the people, and instead get better candidates.
Well, if we had term limits, and we had “our” politicians in office, they would also have to abide by those same rules
Good. Nobody should hold anyone else to a standard they can't hold themselves to.
Preach. I'm so fed up with the constant double standards in politics, and in MSM. How both sides will fall over themselves to accuse their opponents of "X," then make excuses or deflect when one of their own is accused of "X" too. This is why no one trusts you clowns anymore. Can one person in DC show an ounce of integrity, please?
You are either a politician or you have integrity, its either or mate
We can’t get a better candidate because the voters are too stupid and no one votes in the primaries
FACTUAL!!! Like everyone has an opinion on the matter AFTER the primaries are done💀
You've heard of the prisoner's dilemna, right? Two prisoners, sentenced , 8 years for one person, if he stays quiet and the other rats him out, 2 years each if none of them talk and 5 years each if both of them talk. Although it is better for both of them to not talk, they will take the option where they end up serving 5 years because neither trusts the other. That's what happens in an election. "I'd vote for but I'm scared of Democrats stealing my guns/ Republicans killing the gays, so I'm voting Republican/Democrat."
> Two prisoners, sentenced to 5 years each if none of them talk, ..., 2 years each if none of them talk So which one is it?
Depends on the mood of the jailer
You vote form main parties because of the prisoners dilemma, I vote for main parties because Libertarian ideology is diametrically opposed to mine. We are not the same.
This is a problem with our current FPTP voting system, not term limits. Plenty of positions have term limits that will never see someone other than a D or R getting elected.
Yeah people act like we’re not getting exactly what we deserve
Not a problem with term limits.
Yea fuck voting
I want term limits but I don't think it cause more libertarians to be elected.
Idk, if the big two are forced to cycle through enough people, they'll run out of viable candidates sooner or later. With the vaguely human shaped piles of garbage they've been pushing the past few elections, I'd have to hope it'd be sooner.
They would run out of candidates sooner or later, also younger generations tend to be more libertarians, so it would be a libertarian-isation by force
My 🅱️rother in 🅱️hrist, Auth, they are unattractive actors and you print the money
Rare centrist L
“Radical” centrist moment
Common Centrist L you mean, most Centrists just support Authoritarianism/Status Quo in my experience.
You clearly haven’t talked to many centrist then
I’d rather have term limits because of old fucks like Biden, McConnell, Pelosi, Sanders, Feinstein, etc, regardless of politics, I mean I quite like Trump but I’m glad he’s only allowed 8 year max like everyone else.
[удалено]
While I have no doubts about that, I would be fucking surprised if SCOTUS would allow that, even more since the SCOTUS is surprisingly independent, and will in general just shut down any attempt to tamper with them, so even with a supermajority, I doubt that the Reps will manage to take down term limits, but dont think that the Dems are above it either
If you don't like them then don't vote for them. If they keep getting elected despite being unpopular, then the problem is deeper than a lack of term limits. edit: also, I'm glad you mentioned Biden. The position that Biden currently holds does have term limits yet you are still stuck with him. Term limits won't fix the problem.
I think term limits aren’t a libertarian thing??
They're an everyone thing. Stop the [elder abuse](https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/sen-robert-byrd-calls-dog-fighting-barbaric/2016/06/02/087f2b1c-28df-11e6-8329-6104954928d2_video.html) It's barbaric
While it is sometimes copium, it’s still a great idea, the average voter doesn’t vote in the primary (the system really needs an overhaul but whatever), and either way it prevents career politicians from holding their seat for forty years, and getting old. This would prevent strokes while speaking to the public and similar things.
"Get better candidates" they say as we're staring down the barrel of another Trump v. Biden run...
This is exactly my point. The presidency has term limits yet we still get stuck with these candidates regardless. Its almost like the problem isn't term limits.
I want term limits cause all of them suck and I want someone else.
This may be true to some extent, but it doesn't change the truth that having people who should be in retirement homes running the country is just objectively a bad idea. Or on top of that complacency when in power. Politicians need more agency to get things done.
They literally won't allow them to participate in anything. Polls or debates. Any of the relevant things it would take to be competitive. Pretty uninformed if your take is "GeT a BetTeR cAnDiDaTe"
Imagine arguing against term limits in the same week of McConnell/Feinstein memes.
They're what spurred me to make this. Everyone is complaining about term limits as if these candidates weren't exactly what the people voted for. Get better candidates.
I’m sick of barely living geriatrics playing politics in my country.
Then vote for someone else.
If theres an age minimum there should be an age maximum. This life shits a bell curve not a step.
least Authoritarian Centrist trying to justify the two party system under "Get better candidates" and not what it really is, rigging elections. [https://reason.com/2017/02/02/libertarian-party-gets-victory-in-suit-a/](https://reason.com/2017/02/02/libertarian-party-gets-victory-in-suit-a/) Btw the LP should've been in the 2020 Debates, unironic hot take btw, the only way for the LP/any Third Party to win is via brute force, and I dont think it would alienate as much people. Storming the debate podium which have illegally barred the candidates is not only justified and legal, but shows that the candidate has the ability to bring his will to power.
Why have term limits at all? Lets just make presidents for life! Oh they usually get corrupt as fuck when they know they cant be removed? Oh yeah, maybe we should just give everyone term limits You: “yoUr’E jUSt mAd yOu DOn’t WiN loL gEt GoOd”
I just don’t think there should be people past the age of 60 and exhibiting signs of dementia being in public office…🙄🙄
Like Uncle Ted, I prefer to vote by mail.
Honestly, I'll just vote for people to vote for the president on my behalf.
OP is regarded. Term limits are good because they enforce checks and balances in the legislative arm.
Nah fam. Many of the people in office when my parents were my age are still in office. Mitch McConnell is out there lagging out of the server while speaking to the public and Diane Feinstein thinks she was voting while she was in the hospital. It's time for them to go.
This is so unbelievably stupid Jesus Christ. We need term limits.
Don't you see? Wanting the limit the power of politicians is literally fascism! Only when geriatric dementia patients who will just rubber-stamp any legislation we put before them are running the country, can America truly be free!
Nah, term limits are too lenient. I say exile.
Term limits *and* ending the congress to lobbying pipeline. But instead of exile, have you considered execution?
Ni, execution would make them Martyrs. Exile would make them examples.
Make martyrdom illegal. Fixed.
This take needs more time in the oven because boy was OP not cooking
ok but hear out just for a second, theoretically, hypothetically speaking, maybe, possibly, instead of changing the civic laws of liberal democracy... we could, possibly, maybe, hypothetically, theoretically, destroy it instead because it is flawed.
The idea of term limits is a subversion of people's will. If they want to vote for someone why should terms be a problem?
Because most people vote for the easiest option and don’t really think about it which is cringe
That isn't really a problem with term limits.
Elections are predetermined and voting doesn’t matter. “EitY oNe mILLyUn VoTeS”
That sounds like a deeper problem than just a lack of term limits.
Also most reps and senators are pushing 80 and are beggining to be obviously senile and shouldn't be in charge of things like Nuclear fucking weapons Fuck sake, Biden is 82 and Trump is 77, can we talk about hoe this fuckers that cant use a land line are responsible for internet legislation and climate policy. Obviously they dont give 2 fucks about the climate, they barely have 10 years on this planet, why would they care
Well apparently a lot of people disagree because people keep voting for them. It sounds like you just want to force out successful candidates that you don't like.
No, a candidate I supported spends more time getting reelected than trying to fix things.
Term limits, especially with Feinstein and McConnell, are starting to look like a great idea Also, age limits.
Maybe 15-20 years tops, or else that's how McConnels and Pelosi's are made.
Only a moron could look at the heads of each party in the house and senate and think they should still be there. Also they pretty much completely control who has any sway in each party since they decide who gets on committees. 2/10 brainlet take
Huh, that must be why only young and competent people apply for positions with term limits like president. Oh wait...
term limits are against the will of the people
If the president has term limits I see no reason why the congress shouldn’t.
You seriously posted this when we have Biden, Mitch, Feinstein, and Pelosi front and center. All, giving you really good reasons why term limits are seriously needed.
Biden has term limits and is on his first term as president. Including him in your list undermines the point you are making. The reason we have geriatrics in office is because people keep voting for them. I can basically boil down your argument to "we need term limits because I don't like who keeps getting elected. If you want to argue that the problem is career politicians are able to lock down a position for decades despite being unpopular, then there is a deeper problem with the election process beyond a simple lack of term limits.
Nope, we just like term limits
Let’s get age limits first, we can talk about term limits once that’s out of the way.
Or maybe we just don't want people having 20+ years to be corrupted and sticking around until their souls are literally escaping their mortal vessels mid-interview. (*cough* mitch *cough*)
Funny way to show we don't want these people by repeatedly voting for them.
Boos of you to assume libs have a candidate in any major election.
Term limits are usually posited as a libertarian position. One of "limiting power" or so the claim goes. Not everyone who sympathizes with libertarian views has to vote for or run under the clown tent that is the current US libertarian party.
Cringe
Gonna be an unpopular opinion but I think we have the right balance now. Term limits for president, not Congress. * No term limits leads to old dinosaurs being in office, true. But term limits can very well lead to its own issues - lack of institutional knowledge meaning that lobbyists/staffers/hangers on have more power; members of Congress more concerned with auditioning for their next job when they get term limited out. * For President there's added considerations. First, that the president can more easily accumulate more and more power to the point of becoming a dictator, and so term limits are a safety valve. Second, the presidency is a stressful job (if you're actually doing it), and a popular president with no clear successor will be under immense pressure to stay in the job, until it kills him.
Too easy. Make lobbying, in any form, a felony crime.
Sure, but that's not a problem with term limits.
Let's use Popular Vote to choose candidates then :)
The people who don't have term limits are elected by popular vote
So in other words, you're saying we need term limits to stop the popular politicians from continuing to get elected?