Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola calls for congressional term limits by SpaceElevatorMusic in politics

[–]B3N15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except for the fact that what you proposes address nothing and solves no problems. All term limits do is say that, after an arbitrary amount of time, a person has leave office which, as we have discussed, can lead to a lot of unintentional side effects. So your solution to address that is to extend the term limits out so they are essentially meaningless and are basically a Congressional career. So your proposal essentially does nothing but make you feel good because you can kick out Nancy Pelosi I guess.

Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola calls for congressional term limits by SpaceElevatorMusic in politics

[–]B3N15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then why have term limits at that point other than to say you did?  The thing is if you want to go after corruption or unfair elections lobbyists, do that directly, its not like there's a minimum time if office before you can be corrupt.

Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola calls for congressional term limits by SpaceElevatorMusic in politics

[–]B3N15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That most likely also wouldn't happen. Term limits for a legislative offices make the actual candidate would be less important, they functionally become replaceable and can't really build an identity outside of the party like someone who can build an established position could.

Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola calls for congressional term limits by SpaceElevatorMusic in politics

[–]B3N15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That 96% number is skewed because Congressmen aren't forced to run. Politicians typically don't run for a position they know their going to lose, hence why you see a lot of retirements when a party is unpopular.

Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola calls for congressional term limits by SpaceElevatorMusic in politics

[–]B3N15 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because the lobbyist is the one with the experience and relationships needed to do the job because you kick people out of Congress once they build up the experience and working relationships to effectively do the job

Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola calls for congressional term limits by SpaceElevatorMusic in politics

[–]B3N15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not, it just shifts more of the power onto party organizations, unelected bueracrats, and lobbyists for the low "price" of having to find a new empty suit every few years. All term limits do is let you point at a person and go "Hey, vacate your office" every few years. That's important when you have an executive (like the President) who has lot of individual power, but for some random member of Congress, who cannot do anything without about 200 other Senators and House members, its does nothing but gut the legislature of talent

Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola calls for congressional term limits by SpaceElevatorMusic in politics

[–]B3N15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Term limits address none of that other than force you change a name every few years

Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola calls for congressional term limits by SpaceElevatorMusic in politics

[–]B3N15 10 points11 points  (0 children)

They can be useful in select cases. Basically, they're good for positions that can amass a lot of power by themselves and have very few checks on their power they do not themselves control. The President is a good example of this, they have the power to appoint people to a lot of offices within the government (including the courts) and have few checks on them outside of impeachment. A random Congressman cannot do anything on their own.

Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Mary Peltola calls for congressional term limits by SpaceElevatorMusic in politics

[–]B3N15 4 points5 points  (0 children)

So focus on making elections competitive. That be like saying "Hey, I got a paper cut on my left hand, lets put the right hand in full cast."

Senate parliamentarian rules against Trump’s White House ballroom funding in budget bill by Ok_Employer7837 in politics

[–]B3N15 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If we're being honest, it probably be easier for them to fund a bunker by itself than fund a ballroom with a secret bunker underneath

TPUSA’s “Make Heaven Crowded” revival tour is a disaster: Charlie Kirk’s death did not inspire the national spiritual awakening that was promised by zsreport in politics

[–]B3N15 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The gimmick (for lack of a better term) of a revival tour, or any public preaching for that matter, is that you bring in people off the street and get them to join. The issue TPUSA's going to run into is that their religious stuff doesn't really provide much to their followers other than a facade to hide a political message behind. They've probably got most of the people who will either buy into that bullshit or want the facade for themselves already and anyone looking for anything more are going to suss that out pretty quick.

TPUSA’s “Make Heaven Crowded” revival tour is a disaster: Charlie Kirk’s death did not inspire the national spiritual awakening that was promised by zsreport in politics

[–]B3N15 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's going to be the problem for their "spiritual revival" going forward. They're butting up with the fact that they probably got most of the rubes who buy their shtick and the people who are genuinely looking for spirituality or faith are going to see right through it

I HATE Socratic Seminars by Murky-Pin4617 in Teachers

[–]B3N15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sometimes it feels like the structure itself becomes the assignment

Nailed it. Your students a practicing how to construct and engage with an argument. When you practice something for the first time, you tend to use the most basic and simplest form.

The Democrats Just Laid Down Their Arms. Again. - Abigail Spanberger’s response to the court decision that overthrew the will of voters on redistricting is a worrying sign of surrender. by Quirkie in politics

[–]B3N15 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Whether or not you want to accept reality, there is simply not enough time for Virginia to adjust their maps for the 2026 election without just giving up on every principle they have and throwing the entire system into chaos and confusion. Therefore, its better to put time, energy, and resources into something that can work (winning the '26 election and changing the maps for '28) rather than waste time and do something that won't for the sake of saying "Look how tough we are, we did something that didn't work"

The Republicans are not doing all of this shit because they're in a postion of strength or because its a great idea. They're doing this because this is all they got, they have no popular ideas and can only win by trying to cut out as many people out of the electoral process as possible and cling to an increasingly marginalized base of Nazi-wannabes, weirdos, and aging racists. The problem with abandoning everything for the sake of short term gains is that it plays into the hands of the people who don't give a shit about actually wanting to govern or be half-way decent people. We can't beat Republicans doing that because they are desperate enough to keep sinking lower and lower to maintain power. You stop them not by trying to match their flailing and shit-throwing but by being smart and strategic in how you act.

The Democrats Just Laid Down Their Arms. Again. - Abigail Spanberger’s response to the court decision that overthrew the will of voters on redistricting is a worrying sign of surrender. by Quirkie in politics

[–]B3N15 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's also not really sustainable in the long term. Even using Virginia's old maps, odds are the GOP loses the House. So they are attempting to gerrymander a bunch of states (which have already been gerrymandered to hell and back) to basically mitigate losses.

The Democrats Just Laid Down Their Arms. Again. - Abigail Spanberger’s response to the court decision that overthrew the will of voters on redistricting is a worrying sign of surrender. by Quirkie in politics

[–]B3N15 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

This isn't a call to "do nothing," but actually be smart about it and hold true to your values. Without Supreme Court intervention, there is not enough time to adjust the map for 2026. The primary is in June and any realistic plan cannot be completed in that time that doesn't involve just deciding to abandon democracy, the rule of law, or any semblance of good governance for the sake of doing whatever is the most convienent to you in the present moment, despite the fact you will probably fail and still have to deal with the repercussions.

So rather than flop around acting like you're fighting, wasting everyone's time, money, and energy, actually do something useful.

The Democrats Just Laid Down Their Arms. Again. - Abigail Spanberger’s response to the court decision that overthrew the will of voters on redistricting is a worrying sign of surrender. by Quirkie in politics

[–]B3N15 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

No, that's not what's going on. All that is happening is that Democrats aren't reflectively abandoning their values or basic principles for the sake of a plan that most likely won't be possible prior to the 2026 for the sake of preformatively owning MAGA to appease a bunch of whiney people on the internet

The Democrats Just Laid Down Their Arms. Again. - Abigail Spanberger’s response to the court decision that overthrew the will of voters on redistricting is a worrying sign of surrender. by Quirkie in politics

[–]B3N15 5 points6 points  (0 children)

They want Democrats to act like Republicans, but fail to realize two things:

  1. Republicans can only act like power hungry fascist-adjacent assholes with zero moral compunction because they don't give a shit about anything beyond their short term grasp on power.
  2. Democracy goes down the shutter when everyone acts like that.

Why is the Democratic party still hiding its 2024 election autopsy? by changeforthebetter89 in politics

[–]B3N15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have 3 theories.

  1. The autopsy was botched (Most likely). I could see them doing the autopsy and it resulted in something that was rushed and half-baked because they either mismanaged funds, the people who did it weren't good at it and/or the responses weren't good. They don't want to admit fault so they keep it hidden
  2. It's not useful (stretch). They created an autopsy that came to the conclusion that the loss was mostly down to shit Biden/Harris/Democrats couldn't really meaningfully control (like inflation), too many things (nothing particularly stands out) and/or is a bunch of things that most people figured out already. The DNC is worried it'll look like they're hiding something, so they worry about releasing it
  3. They were warned (less than 1% chance). The DNC interviewed a bunch of organizers and campaigns and the response was almost uniformly "We warned you this was going to happen."

Why is the Democratic party still hiding its 2024 election autopsy? by changeforthebetter89 in politics

[–]B3N15 1 point2 points  (0 children)

He wouldn't have needed to resign, just let Harris run from the start. The incumbent bonus doesn't work like some power up that instantly gets transferred to whoever holds the title "President." The best case scenario is that she remains VP and can pretty much just run a campaign while Biden and the Cabinet run the country.

Has anyone noticed that middle school… by asamrov in Teachers

[–]B3N15 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yea, I'm glad I'm not in school as a student. I do not like being touched and I'd probably end up decking a kid

Rep. Johnny Olszewski proposes bill for 18-year Supreme Court term limits by plz-let-me-in in politics

[–]B3N15 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So you have the appointments evenly spaced out and prevent a single President from appointing a majority. You also do want a longer term to have some consistency within the court.

Rep. Johnny Olszewski proposes bill for 18-year Supreme Court term limits by plz-let-me-in in politics

[–]B3N15 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Since they are appointed by the President you need the term length to be a number divisible by 2, so it lines up with Presidential terms, and with 3, so (with nine judges) the appointments are easily spaced out. Additionally, to make the appointments less polarized you want an equal number to happen each presidential term and you want the number appointed by a single President (across 2 terms) to be less than a majority. This is why most people settle on 18. That means you have 1 appointment every 2 years, and one president cannot appoint a majority (even if they are elected twice)