I think we should also include term limits for these offices in addition to the age limit.
You can’t be president for more than 8 years, but you can be in the same political office more or less for almost 40? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me lol.
Yes, term limits are a much better solution as age restrictions can be a slippery slope.
It would also make you useless as your term comes to an end. Political capital and IOUs are the currency in the capitol
Right, I mean those are the things we are saying are bad.
The culture of the Senate and Congress would need to change, and I think it would rather quickly. Unfortunately this is an issue both Republicans and Democrats will never support because the very people entrenched in power would need to vote themselves out of power. It will literally never happen.
Why do you think that term limits will solve it? If there's no seniority whip, what other motivation do they have besides corporate donations? I.E., take all the bribes they can in their short tenure?
Don't tell me more idealistic politicians will make it to the top. I don't believe that for a second.
I guess I'd flip that question. Why do you think being career politicians gives them motivation besides bribes and money?
Because that's the thing, they know they're running another campaign in a couple years, they always need to be raising money for the next one. They always need to solicit donations. And they can't do anything that rocks the boat because it affects the next election.
Presidents very commonly get more done during their second term because they aren't worried about the political impact of their actions affecting their ability to get elected again. I don't see why this effect wouldn't be the same for Congress and the Senate.
Can't we just vote for younger candidates?
Doesn't make sense to subvert the will of the people when they clearly support this.
Also, her age isn't what makes her shit. She's a corporate democrat just looking out for different rich people.
The problem is that this isn’t the will of the people. Preliminaries don’t count as an election so your vote for which candidate that appears on the actual ballot is just a suggestion.
The party committees gets final say on who’s on the ballot for that party to vote for.
Which leads to the problem of the 2 party system where we vote for the least worst candidate
Then vote for independents, or people whose parties don't pull that shit.
And that is the problem with the 2 party system. No one votes that way because not enough people do. Instead everyone voted for less bad option between the 2 major parties. Which happen to be the choices the political committee chose, not the people.
Yeah, you might as well not vote. You're never going to sway enough people to vote independent to challenge one of the big two, especially since the choice right now is between old people or people trying to establish a fascist theocracy.
Alright, then these problems don't get solved.
Now, you’re getting it.
You are correct. Voting isn't going to solve this problem.
Collectively we vote for the representation we deserve.
Maybe in a true democracy. No more gerrymandered districts, ranked choice voting, and term limits would be a good start. Let's kill citizens united while at it.
In a true democracy, we'd have direct voting.
Which I'm a huge fan of. Not sure why we'd vote for people who won't agree with us on everything when we can just vote ourselves and get true representation.
I’d prefer a republic, what the hell do I know about complex foreign policies with the relationship between Sudan and Egypt, or which tax policy will spur economic growth?
That's fine. Just don't complain when the people you elect go against what you think is right.
Personally, I think direct voting would result in people voting for the matters they care about, while ignoring the ones they don't.
Nah, I blame the Republicans for most of the nations current woes since, you know, they tend to be behind most of them.
Plus, how can you see how the average American acts and think we’re still good for a democracy? We need a more fitting class of people to rule, as Adams and Hamilton envisioned it.
What do you think should be the criteria to be included in "a more fitting class of people?"
Some sort of an aristocratic society of intelligent men and women but that would be dreaming
Republicans are mostly to blame. Democrats are just the lesser evil.
Lo' and behold, evil is still evil.
It doesn't make sense to support the lesser evil when you could support no evil at all.
Aren’t you so lucky to be someone who can choose to sit on the fence and not suffer the consequences. Do you understand idiotic that statement is?
Jesus Christ, I hate to do Godwins Law here but just because when you have one side that is Nazi Germany that wants to dominate the world, kill all the undesirables, all that good stuff. Then you take a gander at the British; sure, they are a world colonial empire that deserves to be shattered but they are a democracy that DOESN’T dream of world conquest and killing everyone on earth, so any nonbraindead person would pick the side of the “br’ish”.
And you, over there just sitting there thinking “heh, one side has a small amount of evil while the other is the embodiment of evil so I’m going to do nothing.”
Sure, an extreme example, but the principal is the exact same.
Take Civil Rights, just because sometimes the civil rights people may be annoying and rarely takes a few things too far DOESN’T mean they’re the same as the horrific segregationists and the KKK, who’ll kill and lynch whoever they don’t like.
Please, grow and learn.
Imagine going “My choices are between the Nazis or the British Empire” and thinking the answer is one of them and not burning the whole thing down if that’s the best it can offer you.
You get what you settle for.
Between their shenanigans in India and Ireland the British empire was arguably worse than nazi Germany lmao what a dumb analogy
You really are a dumbass, aren’t ya? Making an argument that the Nazis were all that bad.
I suppose that’s fair, any concession, no matter how small, will constitute a defeat to your side so you must stand your ground and defend the undefendable.
Oh the nazis were horrible. The British empire was worse. The Indian famine, intentionally caused by the crown, killed almost 11 million people. Why are you downplaying genocide? Couldn't you pick a country that didn't kill an equal amount of people as the nazis during the same time period to play the "good guys" in your scenario?
I disagree. Fundamentally we have the final authority to elect our representation. Collectively we decide (and are ultimately responsible for) who is elected to office. Districts don't vote, and corporations don't vote. The people do.
It is the collective responsibility of those not disenfranchised or otherwise excluded from the political system to rectify those problems. Failing to address those problems (or any political problem) isn't a failure of the politicians--it's a failure of us, as a collective, to choose the appropriate lawmakers. Especially when we repeatedly elect the same people over and over.
I know it sounds naive to frame the system this way. But fundamentally the political system operates under the collective authority of voters.
We need to put an age limit on political offices
I think we should also include term limits for these offices in addition to the age limit.
You can’t be president for more than 8 years, but you can be in the same political office more or less for almost 40? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me lol.
Yes, term limits are a much better solution as age restrictions can be a slippery slope.
It would also make you useless as your term comes to an end. Political capital and IOUs are the currency in the capitol
Right, I mean those are the things we are saying are bad.
The culture of the Senate and Congress would need to change, and I think it would rather quickly. Unfortunately this is an issue both Republicans and Democrats will never support because the very people entrenched in power would need to vote themselves out of power. It will literally never happen.
Why do you think that term limits will solve it? If there's no seniority whip, what other motivation do they have besides corporate donations? I.E., take all the bribes they can in their short tenure?
Don't tell me more idealistic politicians will make it to the top. I don't believe that for a second.
I guess I'd flip that question. Why do you think being career politicians gives them motivation besides bribes and money?
Because that's the thing, they know they're running another campaign in a couple years, they always need to be raising money for the next one. They always need to solicit donations. And they can't do anything that rocks the boat because it affects the next election.
Presidents very commonly get more done during their second term because they aren't worried about the political impact of their actions affecting their ability to get elected again. I don't see why this effect wouldn't be the same for Congress and the Senate.
Can't we just vote for younger candidates?
Doesn't make sense to subvert the will of the people when they clearly support this.
Also, her age isn't what makes her shit. She's a corporate democrat just looking out for different rich people.
The problem is that this isn’t the will of the people. Preliminaries don’t count as an election so your vote for which candidate that appears on the actual ballot is just a suggestion.
The party committees gets final say on who’s on the ballot for that party to vote for.
Which leads to the problem of the 2 party system where we vote for the least worst candidate
Then vote for independents, or people whose parties don't pull that shit.
And that is the problem with the 2 party system. No one votes that way because not enough people do. Instead everyone voted for less bad option between the 2 major parties. Which happen to be the choices the political committee chose, not the people.
Yeah, you might as well not vote. You're never going to sway enough people to vote independent to challenge one of the big two, especially since the choice right now is between old people or people trying to establish a fascist theocracy.
Alright, then these problems don't get solved.
Now, you’re getting it.
You are correct. Voting isn't going to solve this problem.
Cornel West laughing…
Second least worst in most cases
You're absolutely right.
Collectively we vote for the representation we deserve.
Maybe in a true democracy. No more gerrymandered districts, ranked choice voting, and term limits would be a good start. Let's kill citizens united while at it.
In a true democracy, we'd have direct voting.
Which I'm a huge fan of. Not sure why we'd vote for people who won't agree with us on everything when we can just vote ourselves and get true representation.
I’d prefer a republic, what the hell do I know about complex foreign policies with the relationship between Sudan and Egypt, or which tax policy will spur economic growth?
That's fine. Just don't complain when the people you elect go against what you think is right.
Personally, I think direct voting would result in people voting for the matters they care about, while ignoring the ones they don't.
Nah, I blame the Republicans for most of the nations current woes since, you know, they tend to be behind most of them.
Plus, how can you see how the average American acts and think we’re still good for a democracy? We need a more fitting class of people to rule, as Adams and Hamilton envisioned it.
What do you think should be the criteria to be included in "a more fitting class of people?"
Some sort of an aristocratic society of intelligent men and women but that would be dreaming
Republicans are mostly to blame. Democrats are just the lesser evil.
Lo' and behold, evil is still evil.
It doesn't make sense to support the lesser evil when you could support no evil at all.
Aren’t you so lucky to be someone who can choose to sit on the fence and not suffer the consequences. Do you understand idiotic that statement is?
Jesus Christ, I hate to do Godwins Law here but just because when you have one side that is Nazi Germany that wants to dominate the world, kill all the undesirables, all that good stuff. Then you take a gander at the British; sure, they are a world colonial empire that deserves to be shattered but they are a democracy that DOESN’T dream of world conquest and killing everyone on earth, so any nonbraindead person would pick the side of the “br’ish”.
And you, over there just sitting there thinking “heh, one side has a small amount of evil while the other is the embodiment of evil so I’m going to do nothing.”
Sure, an extreme example, but the principal is the exact same.
Take Civil Rights, just because sometimes the civil rights people may be annoying and rarely takes a few things too far DOESN’T mean they’re the same as the horrific segregationists and the KKK, who’ll kill and lynch whoever they don’t like.
Please, grow and learn.
Imagine going “My choices are between the Nazis or the British Empire” and thinking the answer is one of them and not burning the whole thing down if that’s the best it can offer you.
You get what you settle for.
Between their shenanigans in India and Ireland the British empire was arguably worse than nazi Germany lmao what a dumb analogy
You really are a dumbass, aren’t ya? Making an argument that the Nazis were all that bad.
I suppose that’s fair, any concession, no matter how small, will constitute a defeat to your side so you must stand your ground and defend the undefendable.
Oh the nazis were horrible. The British empire was worse. The Indian famine, intentionally caused by the crown, killed almost 11 million people. Why are you downplaying genocide? Couldn't you pick a country that didn't kill an equal amount of people as the nazis during the same time period to play the "good guys" in your scenario?
Calm down. I stopped reading as soon as you came at me with animosity.
If you want me to take you seriously, talk with less emotion and more logical reasoning.
I really think we need to amend the constitution to allow a true democratic vote of no confidence for all federally elected positions.
I disagree. Fundamentally we have the final authority to elect our representation. Collectively we decide (and are ultimately responsible for) who is elected to office. Districts don't vote, and corporations don't vote. The people do.
It is the collective responsibility of those not disenfranchised or otherwise excluded from the political system to rectify those problems. Failing to address those problems (or any political problem) isn't a failure of the politicians--it's a failure of us, as a collective, to choose the appropriate lawmakers. Especially when we repeatedly elect the same people over and over.
I know it sounds naive to frame the system this way. But fundamentally the political system operates under the collective authority of voters.