this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2024
262 points (98.9% liked)

Politics

355 readers
208 users here now

For civil discussion of US politics. Be excellent to each other.

Rule 1: Posts have the following requirements:
▪️ Post articles about the US only

▪️ Title must match the article headline

▪️ Recent (Past 30 Days)

▪️ No Screenshots/links to other social media sites or link shorteners

Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. One or two small paragraphs are okay.

Rule 3: Articles based on opinion (unless clearly marked and from a serious publication-No Fox News or equal), misinformation or propaganda will be removed.

Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, ableist, will be removed.

Rule 5: Keep it civil. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a jerk. It’s not acceptable to say another user is a jerk. Cussing is fine.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.

USAfacts.org

The Alt-Right Playbook

Media owners, CEOs and/or board members

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Maggoty 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Term limits, no. Age limits, yes. The basic run down is term limits sound great but they lead to more corruption because politicians are more dependent on third party help to get elected.

[–] Buddahriffic 2 points 1 day ago

Yeah, term limits mean that when those rare good ones do come along, there's a limit to how long they can do good, then you need to go back to the gamble that the next guy isn't just saying whatever they think will win them the election.

Though that's assuming a legit good one even could make it to the presidency and won't just get JFK'd if they won't be controlled.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the secret service is as much a means to control the president as it is to protect him, too.

[–] somethingsnappy 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm from a rural state, so I get that some don't want term limits, or the pork spending and leadsership positions would never go to small population congresspeople. But, fuck it. It's one way to help people and not land make decisions.

[–] Maggoty 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That's not the problem. Hell small populations are easier to propagandize and once legislators are disposable items you'll need those small populations to reliably vote your party's way.

The problem is the balance of power between individual politicians, their party, and lobbyists tips seriously into the favor of party and lobbyists. That would be fine in a system like proportional representation, where it's easier to get rid of a bad party. But not in a district system.

So for all of the criticism that politicians should wear their sponsors on their suits, term limits will make that 100 times worse.

[–] somethingsnappy 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There are many things that would be a good change. In a vacuum, term limits would absolutely be one of them. Like excluding family members from the presidency. You can argue against it, but you're wrong.

[–] Maggoty 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The problem is we don't live in a vacuum. Humans and organizations are going to react, and we know how they're going to react because we've studied it. Politicians survive on their personal name brand. Term limits obliterate that. If you want to run for Congress you'll have to submit an application to a major party or be an independently wealthy person, preferably with some kind of family dynasty people recognize.

Once the politicians are completely dependent on party that moves all decision making to the party. That means cookie cutter bills in every state and decisions made in smoke filled rooms by people whose name you've never heard. Yeah that happens to some extent now, but with professional politicians that have their own constituency they have the independence to say no. If the employee politician under the term limit system says no they don't get their next term, they certainly don't get a crack at higher office, and they don't get their soft landing after their terms are up.

Long term it gets even worse. Anyone with enough money can play this game, including billionaires like Elon Musk. Are you excited for Elon's personal legislator? No? Then don't do term limits.

[–] somethingsnappy 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Anyone with enough money has been playing the game for roughly 250 years. Term limits isn't a fix by itself, and with other countries purchasing presidents, maybe not the first reform, but it's on the list, no?

[–] Maggoty 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Sure they have, I said as much in my post. But it's a lot less effective if the guy you gave a massive donation to can now raise money on his own name and get himself re-elected. He's free to tell you no, no matter how much money you gave his campaign.

That entire calculus changes with term limits.