Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I can see the argument that Trump was elected by the elites, specifically the elites in the boardrooms of CNN, Fox and similar. They worked very hard to help keep Trump in the race and enable him to con the anxious middle-class that voted for him.
However none of that explains why Mad thinks that locking the common man out of controlling politicans (via introducing term limits) is a good idea.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
![]()
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13103447000A18674100&page=7416#185394
We did. Then we got sidetracked by Madskillz claiming that term limits for Senators were a good idea. Most people here disagree.
Disgusted, but not surprisedAll that study says is that the influence of campaign contributions is reduced in states with term limits, not that overall cooperate influence is limited or reduced.
again, campaign contributions are not the only way in which big money gains influence over politicans, it's foolish to think that they only come at politicans form one angle.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranBecause I don't think it would actually lock out the common man. If someone's worried about the next election and the next election after that, they're worried more about getting enough campaign money and that means not stepping onto the donor's toes.
That's not my argument though. I never said it only comes from one angle.
edited 28th Apr '17 12:18:00 PM by MadSkillz
The Freedom Caucus will back an amended version of the GOP healthcare bill
.
The amendment in question:
So long as states can create and fund a high-risk coverage pool for affected consumers, they can apply for limited waivers from the community rating provision of the Affordable Care Act, which requires insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions.
X3 So change the way campaigns are funded, made it down via public funds or small personnel contributions, or just money from the central party fund.
No you've just ignored every other angle, totally different..
Also a state level study has its limits, there's upward political mobility from state level office towards national office, that will make a difference, as a term limited state senator can go to congress, but a term limited congressman is looking almost exclusively at the private sector for their future.
edited 28th Apr '17 12:21:02 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIntellectuals can hardly be called real elites in this country, and people with more money tended to pull more for Trump, then Clinton. Clinton can hardly be said to have gotten the elite vote anymore then Trump can say that the common man was on his side when poor voters went overwhelmingly for Clinton.
They're given that anyway when they lose. It's called their safety net.
Also nice to see more agree with my assertion that politicians are frequently bought by the private sector and helped out with job offers after they're done.
Fox News Poll: Only 36% of Voters would Re-Elect Trump, and only 49% of Trump Voters would.
(This link is from the Week if you don't want to go to Fox) The Poll also indicates that 47% of Voters will vote for Democrats in 2018, and 5% of Trump Voters will vote for Democrats in 2018.
That sounds like Good news to me.
edited 28th Apr '17 12:25:02 PM by DingoWalley1
I agree with this. There's a lot of things you need to change.
Because I was specifically talking about the good in term limits. The angles you're bringing up is irrelevant to my argument.
It was just one aspect that I brought up about as to why I think term limits are good.
edited 28th Apr '17 12:31:04 PM by MadSkillz
A vox article arguing that term limits are not a good idea.
The main argument seems to be that they weaken the legislative branch relative to the executive branch, using state legislatures as examples.
And here's a Huffington Post article claiming that term limits really do empower lobbyists.
edited 28th Apr '17 12:34:41 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprised"Hillary won the popular vote and Trump won the electorate vote."
The average Electoral College voters are schlubs so breathtaking in their stupidity and barbarity that disenfranchising them would probably be a Nobel Prize-worthy accomplishment of humanitarian action and advance the cause of world peace. They are, almost literally, picked off the dirty streets, arriviste thugs unfit for any political role.
Actual elites were shuffled into the meaningless millions that constitute the popular vote.
edited 28th Apr '17 12:39:48 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.""'8-year assault' on Second Amendment is over"
There was no "assault". There couldn't be, because every time even reasonable legislation was proposed, it got immediately shot down (if you'll excuse the pun) by the GOP/NRA.
But go ahead, keep spreading the lie that the Obama era was nothing but "TAKING 'WAY OUR FREEDUMS!"
EDIT:
I can't come up with a ton of examples, but one of the most prominent ones was that elector from Texas who wrote a threatening letter to a citizen who requested he change his vote from Trump to Hillary. He threatened to sue her on really flimsy grounds and ended the letter with "deplorably yours".
edited 28th Apr '17 12:50:25 PM by speedyboris
One of the arguments I've seen against term limits for politicians (while living in a country where reelection is a big no), is as follows:
Politicians are ambitious. They have to be. Politics isn't the best career job, but it's prestigious.
So, being able to get reelected helps keep the politicians' egos in check: they get their "power" and prestige, and in exchange they've got to do good things for the people who elected, after all, if they don't they won't get reelected.
If you tell them they can only get elected once, most of them will see it as deadline for how much money, power, influence or favours they can get for themselves and their close circle in 2, 4 or 6 years.
In other words, term limits lead to corruption because politicians will no longer ask "what can I do so these people get me elected?" and instead they'll begin to ask "how much can I get out of the system in the X years I'll be in office?"
Also, experience helps. It's good to have politicians who have served for a long time for the experience and connections they bring to the game, tools that can be used to bring political opponents together for a specific piece of legislation that benefits many people.
Trump says he is both a nationalist and a globalist: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/04/28/donald_trump_now_says_he_s_a_nationalist_and_a_globalist.html
So much for the Alt-Rights' hate of globalism...

edited 28th Apr '17 12:12:44 PM by TheRoguePenguin