I'm not sure I remember this era of Republican party discipline.
I subjectively think from your postings that you think Democrats have some idealism that they rally around. In your worldview, Republicans need to get with the program.
Independent leads in Nebraska Senate Race
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
I subjectively think from your postings that you think Democrats have some idealism that they rally around. In your worldview, Republicans need to get with the program.
Just what you read. No more, no less.
So let's just simplify it. You believe the Democratic agenda follows certain ideals. You believe Republicans need to follow these ideals more. That's just my observation.
I merely look at term limits possibly leading to some compromise. Maybe even less rigid votes. Whether that could happen or not, I'm talking about both parties' members.
Last edited:
Name a single person who doesn't think the world would be better if more politicians were aligned with their ideals?
I don't understand the relevance of the statement.
I'm one of the FEW people on this board who actually seems to acknowledge that people have different values and ideals and the point of politics is to manage that in a non-violent way.
I have only been talking about members of all parties.
You're the one who introduced the idea that my term limit support would be based on partisan issues.
I don't see any evidence that term limits increase compromise or lower corruption.
If anything, it seems to go the other way on both.
It wasn't intended to be a criticism. Perhaps you're more pragmatic than I realize.
I think generally when people think of limiting donor influence in Washington they are seeing the influence on the other party. Perhaps you see this as a significant problem with both parties. Many members here don't.
He is a Neo-Liberal who loves the status quo as defined by the Clinton/Bush/Obama Years. Offers no solutions, just criticism of anything that might change that.
As much as many tend to think it is always the other party's fault, I think "donor influence has some serious fucking problems" is one that is pretty bipartisan across most voters.
Wait, are you now saying you don't believe term limits are an anti-corruption move just because I said you did?
Because that would be hilarious.
ROTFL!
I forgot the whole " Butler doesn't know what neo-liberal means" thing.
Ahhh...
Thanks for the reminder.
They are an anti corruption move. The longer someone is in office, the more powerful they get, attracting more money for that influence. To think otherwise is just plain stupid. Of course there are exceptions. But between that and the need for fresh ideas, and finally to prevent the Diane Feinsteins of the world, term limits are a better choice.Wait, are you now saying you don't believe term limits are an anti-corruption move just because I said you did?
Because that would be hilarious.
ROTFL!
I forgot the whole " Butler doesn't know what neo-liberal means" thing.
Ahhh...
Thanks for the reminder.
Neoliberalism - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Here is my definition.
So if you believe that, why are you upset that I am giving you proper credit for supporting that idea in this thread when Wyatt wondered who was supporting that idea?
The Diane Feinstein issue is better and more elegantly handled by an upper age limit, as Wyatt proposes, isn't it?
If you are able to read and understand this definition, why do you not use the term properly 90-95% of the time?Neoliberalism - Wikipedia
Here is my definition.
Because only one is actually going to fix the problem you identified.
Putting both in because you think they would fix different problems, sure, but I would hope that you would (for once) actually want to fix a problem you've identified.
I disagree. It's that simple. You have yet to produce an argument, evidence or anything other than your own opinion.
We aren't even arguing about age limits.
We both support them.
I know you think I'm the devil incarnate or something, but you might want to actually pay attention.
As for term limits ending people being too old, that is obviously false on its face, since people can get elected at any age.
I thought simple math was obvious enough that I didn't have to spell it out for you.
Once again you are not making sense. I said term limits assist with preventing corruption. Full stop. Age limits prevent senility being a factor. Combined they do good work. I think an age floor us also appropriate.
And don't be so narcissistic. You are at best one rank above NPC.
You said term limits would present things like Fienstein, which is an age limit issue.
As for term limits helping with preventing corruption, you are allowed to cling to your wrong opinion.
Term Limits - Center for Effective Government
effectivegov.uchicago.edu
Beware of Candidates Selling Term Limits
Limiting lawmakers’ time in office only exacerbates the problems with our government.
Term limits aren’t the answer
Very few Americans believe Congress is doing a good job. Some of them have a simple solution: Throw the bums out and institute term limits. But that creates more problems than it solves.
theconversation.com
How Term Limits Turn Legislatures Over to Lobbyists
The next time you hear some TV pundit proclaiming the “solution” to the “problem” of Mitch McConnell or Dianne Feinstein being in office too long, consider their real agenda...
hartmannreport.com
The Failure of Term Limits in Florida on JSTOR
In 1992, Florida voters approved an amendment to the state's Constitution creating eight-year term limits for legislators-making Florida the second-larges...
www.jstor.org
Twenty-five years later, term limits have failed to deliver on their promise, but they’re probably here to stay - Citizens Research Council of Michigan
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Livonia, Mich. – May 8, 2018 – Wayne State University political scientists Drs. Marjorie Sarbaugh-Thompson and Lyke Thompson, have been studying the effects of term limits in Michigan since they were adopted via ballot initiative in 1992. Their most recently updated...
crcmich.org
LOL.
NPC.
You really are terminally online.
All of these articles discuss term limits in terms of 6-8 years. They also discuss how gerrymandering hurts term limits by creating safe seats. Obviously that is too small a time limit. You can double that. As for the notion that lobbyists do better with new elected ones that's ridiculous. It takes time for them to feel them out, and quite simply the longer in the more cozy they get.You said term limits would present things like Fienstein, which is an age limit issue.
As for term limits helping with preventing corruption, you are allowed to cling to your wrong opinion.
Term Limits - Center for Effective Government
Beware of Candidates Selling Term Limits
Limiting lawmakers’ time in office only exacerbates the problems with our government.slate.com
Term limits aren’t the answer
Very few Americans believe Congress is doing a good job. Some of them have a simple solution: Throw the bums out and institute term limits. But that creates more problems than it solves.How Term Limits Turn Legislatures Over to Lobbyists
The next time you hear some TV pundit proclaiming the “solution” to the “problem” of Mitch McConnell or Dianne Feinstein being in office too long, consider their real agenda...The Failure of Term Limits in Florida on JSTOR
In 1992, Florida voters approved an amendment to the state's Constitution creating eight-year term limits for legislators-making Florida the second-larges...Twenty-five years later, term limits have failed to deliver on their promise, but they’re probably here to stay - Citizens Research Council of Michigan
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Livonia, Mich. – May 8, 2018 – Wayne State University political scientists Drs. Marjorie Sarbaugh-Thompson and Lyke Thompson, have been studying the effects of term limits in Michigan since they were adopted via ballot initiative in 1992. Their most recently updated...
LOL.
NPC.
You really are terminally online.
I'm sensing paid for studies here. By the lobbyists and special interests.
