Well, that was unexpected.
My point was not about term limits at all, but that one of the blunders leading to the voting catastrophe that let Felon Trump into office was people picking a single topic, and ignoring all the other horrific outcomes.
E.g., focusing on âborders.â But they didnât expect to lose their small business, health care, retirement, or home.
Grown up politics, in contrast, is a multilayered, really 5-D chess scenario that requires, at times, holding oneâs nose and compromising. However, a lot of politicians have lost that talent, and media loves to look at compromising as a fault, ginning up headlines.
Tip O'Neill said it best: "Politics is the art of compromise." Sadly there's too much grandstanding and not enough negotiating among politicians.
Kurtster wrote:
"Well with all the drama going on with your side of the aisle regarding the DNC trying to get rid of the old folks with primary challengers, isn't it about time some adults starting talking about term limits ?? Again ? That would have prevented most of the shit we are all dealing with."
I think you're right, that term limits could help make our politics more effective, but Steely_D and I are talking about voters focusing too much on one or two issues to the detriment of other goals they have.
Hey, it's hard to get elected officials to go along with term limits. Remember, Newt Gingrich came to power with a bunch of Republicans who took an oath before their elections that they would honor a self-imposed term limit (two terms in the House, I think). IIRC most of them "forgot" that oath when it came time to act on it. Power and status are addictive; I think that's what drove Joe Biden to think he could last a second term.
How do you get politicians to vote/act against their own best interests? I've daydreamed that you could get people in Congress to set term limits and block their own insider trading/investments by letting them pass laws that go into effect AFTER they leave office.
So, in daydream paradise, the House and Senate would block insider investment by making it illegal after a certain date, with sitting officials in Congress getting an exception until they leave office.
The ban would gradually take place as incumbents left office until everyone is a newcomer, blocked from insider investment.
You could do this with term limits and (perhaps) imposing limits on campaign funding sources and spending limits.
Well with all the drama going on with your side of the aisle regarding the DNC trying to get rid of the old folks with primary challengers, isn't it about time some adults starting talking about term limits ? Again ? That would have prevented most of the shit we are all dealing with.
And don't try and patronize me with BS about this cuz every time I bring this up, unrealistic pearl clutching happens about losing the good ones. Everyone of you still here.
Term limits or we all go to Hell.
No term limits is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
You all are demonstrably, INSANE.
.
Well, that was unexpected.
My point was not about term limits at all, but that one of the blunders leading to the voting catastrophe that let Felon Trump into office was people picking a single topic, and ignoring all the other horrific outcomes.
E.g., focusing on âborders.â But they didnât expect to lose their small business, health care, retirement, or home.
Grown up politics, in contrast, is a multilayered, really 5-D chess scenario that requires, at times, holding oneâs nose and compromising. However, a lot of politicians have lost that talent, and media loves to look at compromising as a fault, ginning up headlines.
In terms of something like game theory, those people voted according to the philosophy of their principles and in doing so actually worsened the chances of those principles existing in the reality of today's world.
That seems to be the element missing in contemporary politics: compromise while holding one’s nose. Religion is likely the genesis of that (see what I did?) where there is no moving of the line, no compromise. God said it, and that’s it. And that moves into other worlds, so that politicians who are comfortable with that sort of rigidity are incapable of governing such a large, diverse area (city, state, nation). Pick a litmus and DO. NOT. BUDGE. So you get folks who refuse to vote for Harris (e.g.) and think that anyone gives an aeronautic intercourse that they didn’t bother to show up. That’s adolescent thinking: ”I’m not gonna clean the room and that’ll show my parents!” Kids, you’re all grown up now. The world does NOT revolve around you and refusing to cast a vote 1) won’t get you attention to your topic-of-the-week and 2) gets you a result you might not want.
Well with all the drama going on with your side of the aisle regarding the DNC trying to get rid of the old folks with primary challengers, isn't it about time some adults starting talking about term limits ????? Again ???? That would have prevented most of the shit we are all dealing with.
And don't try and patronize me with BS about this cuz every time I bring this up, unrealistic pearl clutching happens about losing the good ones. Everyone of you still here.
Term limits or we all go to Hell.
No term limits is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
In terms of something like game theory, those people voted according to the philosophy of their principles and in doing so actually worsened the chances of those principles existing in the reality of today's world.
That seems to be the element missing in contemporary politics: compromise while holding oneâs nose. Religion is likely the genesis of that (see what I did?) where there is no moving of the line, no compromise. God said it, and thatâs it.
And that moves into other worlds, so that politicians who are comfortable with that sort of rigidity are incapable of governing such a large, diverse area (city, state, nation). Pick a litmus and DO. NOT. BUDGE.
So you get folks who refuse to vote for Harris (e.g.) and think that anyone gives an aeronautic intercourse that they didnât bother to show up. Thatâs adolescent thinking: âIâm not gonna clean the room and thatâll show my parents!â Kids, youâre all grown up now. The world does NOT revolve around you and refusing to cast a vote 1) wonât get you attention to your topic-of-the-week and 2) gets you a result you might not want.
FYT. Nothing changed. Still complicit and in denial about it.
A predictable scapegoat too (even though more people disagreed) for the party of human rights and the "rules-based order."
And likely not the biggest reason people didn't vote (for Democrats.)
Thanks for (indirectly) proving my point:
Yes, the Democratic party and Harris supported Israel's war in Palestinian territories for far too long. Yes, "the party of human rights and 'rules-based order' " failed to live up to its principles.
Yes, this led to an erosion of support among Arab-Americans (and others) for the Democrats.
But this fine act of non-support/sitting on hands/voting for Trump helped usher in Trump again. Trump, who doesn't give a fvck about "human rights and 'rules-based order' ."
It's called cutting off your nose to spite your face. It rarely has a good outcome.
Had those people whose anger over Palestine helped turn them away from Harris instead held their nose and voted for her, they still would have had a chance to push her away from Israel after the election. Now they have Trump who won't do anything for the Palestinians because they can't do anything for him.
In terms of something like game theory, those people voted according to the philosophy of their principles and in doing so actually worsened the chances of those principles existing in the reality of today's world.
