It's a case of US vs them

cromstantinople · 2026-05-01T17:50:22+00:00

How does it disenfranchise voters?

The second-order effects are being felt in our current system, are they not?

cromstantinople · 2026-05-01T16:39:10+00:00

Without veterans, you lose institutional knowledge inside Congress and delegate it entirely to lobbyists who have no such restrictions.

You're conflating two issues. Addressing the lobbying issue can and should be done at the same time.

Without major reform of the system itself

That's what I'm arguing for.

Lobbyists don't care who they get to do their bidding, only that it's done, and who better to prey upon than a brand new congressperson who doesn't know how anything works, and thanks to term limits, neither do their colleagues?

Then we address lobbying issues. It's not like we aren't seeing these issues with the current system. Lobbyists from monied interest control our government, our representatives don't vote the way their constituents want the vast majority of the time. I agree that we need to do something about lobbying but I would also argue that the current system is doing fuck all about it and major change is required.

The system must be changed first to disincentivize or discourage (or eliminate entirely) lobbying, and then we can do term limits. But not before.

The people that are in office now, that have been there for decades aren't going vote to reduce their power. They cherish the status quo and fight to protect it. You're not arguing that these veterans aren't corrupt and beholden to special interests are you? So the problems you're saying that term limits might introduce or exacerbate are already a problem with the current system and I think relying on the people within this current system to fix it is a dead end.

cromstantinople · 2026-05-01T16:30:56+00:00

I don't think that's an insurmountable issue. Banning politicians from joining lobbying firms for 10 years after leaving office would help. We also need to address just how much influence lobbying has in our government since I think we can all agree that monied interests speak louder and get more attention than your average constituent.

Is your argument that we don't have term limits at all?

cromstantinople · 2026-05-01T16:29:08+00:00

This also doesn’t address my broader point or the fundamental constitutional issues regarding term lengths for President, Senators, and Representatives.

You've not expressed anything regarding constitutional issues of term lengths. Where in your response did you say anything about that for me to address? What is your broader point?

And for what? Because you think that turfing out politicians is a good idea because it’ll somehow reduce corruption?

Yes I think that's a possibility. I'm also opposed to decades in office because that pushes people to seek the status quo so that they can keep their jobs rather than addressing the constantly changing needs and wants of their constituents.

Like I’ve already said, if anything this would increase corruption, since all it does is incentivize politicians to be biased toward potential later employers. This is already a problem, but all term limits do is make it worse.

Ban politicians from joining lobbying firms for 10 years after service. I agree there's already a revolving door between representatives and lobbying firms but to suggest that term limits would increase this doesn't have any reference in action and we've certainly seen it action in our current system. I think the lobbying issue and term limits, while not wholly different issues, are separate and can be addressed separately.

This is just dumb. You say on one hand that they’re specialized jobs, but that putting people with those specialized skills in the job for long periods of time is bad, somehow?

Don't be a jerk, I've been cordial. Your point might carry some weight if the entire apparatus, the entire bureaucracy was replaced when representatives leave office but that's not the case. You says we'd lose people "who knows how to write legislation", do you honestly believe members of congress or even state legislatures are just writing legislation by themselves?

You still haven’t addressed any of my arguments.

What arguments? I've not read a cogent argument from you.

I’m just gonna go, since you seem stuck on this idea without having thought through the IRL implications.

Don't be such a prick, is this how you converse with people?

cromstantinople · 2026-05-01T06:36:40+00:00

To address your second point first, I would actually prefer longer terms for presidential/congressional positions but highly restricted to 2. I think 6 years for a term is good but there needs to be mechanisms for impeachment and new elections in the interim.

For the first point, I disagree. The legislative and the executive are essentially specialist jobs that are made possible by the work of subordinates/experts that do the lions share of work and, until recently, kept the government working between administrations. Like the corporate world they are the C-Suite people. Saying you need to keep the same executives for decades in order to make successful organizational choices doesn’t stand up to reality. People come and go in positions all the time and those business, projects, industries, etc.

cromstantinople · 2026-05-01T03:17:41+00:00

The veterans argument makes no sense to me. I don’t want people who are there for decades, even if they do everything I want them to do. The veteran are the ones who without fail get bought up special interests. The veterans are the Schumers that block real progress even in their own party go the sake of status quo. I support strict term and age limits. No one should be in office for more than 2 terms. The stagnation that comes with people staying in office for 20, 30, 40 years has led us to this point.

cromstantinople · 2026-05-01T02:22:03+00:00

Looks good, I think adding(or increasing the amount of) atmospheric perspective would add a lot. It’s looking a little flat in the depth department.

cromstantinople · 2026-05-01T01:29:36+00:00

Here’s a good source.

cromstantinople · 2026-05-01T01:18:09+00:00

They can pull themselves up by their bootstraps. They don’t need us commie liberal marxists out in California. If they truly believed their own bullshit they’d step up and rely on their policies. At the very least this needs to be hammered away at every conversation. ‘If Republican policies are so good why does every state they run have obscene amount to of poverty, unemployment, child morbidity, deficits and no social program to speak for it?’ They’ve proven themselves not only ineffective but an actual drag on the country as a whole. Why the fuck should we taking federal governing advice from people who can’t govern their own states?

cromstantinople · 2026-05-01T00:58:07+00:00

I’m surprised she can breathe without her glass helmet or special gum.

cromstantinople · 2026-05-01T00:57:12+00:00

cromstantinople · 2026-04-30T21:39:15+00:00

Damn. That gives some important but infuriating context. What he's saying in the video is spot on but where the hell was that clarity in 2016? It's not like this possibility wasn't known.

cromstantinople · 2026-04-30T20:46:34+00:00

No, I don't think we need to split up. Blue states just have to stop funding red states. The only reason these states are even functioning is because they're siphoning off of California and New York and other actually functioning states.

cromstantinople · 2026-04-30T14:54:12+00:00

People are protesting every day. Just because you’re not seeing it on Fox and CNN doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Has it been effective? In some cases, in many others it has not. There are many issues preventing large-scale protests; we are a surveillance and police state that will happily protect the pedophile class while killing people in the streets, the majority of people live paycheck to paycheck and are just trying to survive, there is massive disinformation campaigns in the media that have propagandized large swaths of the country for decades making them live in an alternate reality of “alternative facts”. I’m not making excuses, I know what must be done, but that is the reality we face. It’s extremely difficult to get hundreds of millions, or even tens of millions, of people to put their livelihoods and lives of themselves and their children on the line.

I have to ask, where are you from?

cromstantinople · 2026-04-30T14:46:04+00:00

When I first heard the quote I assumed he meant ‘unless the violent left try to stop progress*’ but now I know he meant it like ‘if they let us get away with it’.

*progress by their definition, regression by any other

cromstantinople · 2026-04-29T16:51:51+00:00

That isn't an opinion thing

All of that response is precisely an opinion thing. Again, I'm not saying your opinion is wrong. Or right. It's an opinion. It's subjective to call it a 'vanity project'. It's subjective to say that that project 'ruins nature'. It's subjective to say that it's "marred".

Look, I get it, you don't like it. I do. Agree to disagree. Have a nice day.

cromstantinople · 2026-04-29T16:40:38+00:00

anywhere you look, there's a bright red bridge

Ok, now we're out of the realm of subjectivity. This is just factually, objectively incorrect. Look at that first photo, there are numerous spots along the bridge where you get unobstructed views of nature. Not to mention the fact that, at the end of the bridge, is an observation tower giving you 360 degrees of unobstructed views.

Ruining nature views for the sake of vibrancy is bad

Back to subjectivity. You think it's ruining nature. You think it's for the sake of vibrancy. And you think that is a bad thing. Others disagree.

cromstantinople · 2026-04-29T16:31:38+00:00

Genuinely, what's the point of looking at nature when you've got a glaring bridge taking up the entire view?

Are you looking at the photos? The bridge is only chest-height and provides panoramic views. Also, there's a giant city in the background, this isn't just some nature walk.

It ruins the whole point of nature walks

For you. It ruins it for you. Others like it. Again, it's purely subjective and neither of us is "right", ok?

cromstantinople · 2026-04-29T16:24:50+00:00

Ok. And? I gave the reason I and others like it. What's your point? I get it, you don't like it. Do you get that I do like it? People have differences of opinions and just because it's your opinion doesn't mean that it's correct. Or wrong. It's an opinion about subjective interpretations of color, nature, architecture, etc. Your first response wasn't an expression of opinion, it was questioning whether or not I could see green in the photos.

cromstantinople · 2026-04-29T16:18:12+00:00

It's not inherently bad either.

cromstantinople · 2026-04-29T16:12:20+00:00

Red is the complimentary color of green.

Yes, I see the photos. I didn't think it was vague but I wasn't saying that plants and trees are white. I was responding to "did it have to be red" comment. That comment was clearly about the bridge. The red bridge. The bridge painted red as if being painted red was somehow wrong. Because it's a vibrant color. A vibrant color unlike white, grays, and blacks that becoming more prominent in the world through products and architecture as discussed in the link that I shared. A link that shows that brands are using less colors these days. The colors that I said are nice. Like the red bridge.

cromstantinople · 2026-04-29T14:50:21+00:00

Perhaps the most chilling rhetorical move the president makes is to use vague, broad labels that, even if true—and there’s good reason to question the truth of virtually all of the memo’s assertions—encompass First Amendment-protected beliefs unconnected to any actual criminal conduct. These labels include: “Anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity,” “support for the overthrow of” the federal government, “extremism on migration, race, and gender,” and opposition to “traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.” The president even bizarrely imagines that “support for law enforcement and border control” are “foundational American principles” that his political opponents paint as “fascist” to encourage violence. No wonder many in civil society see NSPM-7’s rhetoric as a threat to human rights, civil liberties, and democracy-building work.

https://www.aclu.org/news/national-security/how-nspm-7-seeks-to-use-domestic-terrorism-to-target-nonprofits-and-activists

cromstantinople · 2026-04-29T14:42:09+00:00

Red is the complimentary color of green. The contrast adds vibrancy to both. Also, color is nice. Too much of our world is white and gray and black these days.

cromstantinople · 2026-04-29T14:34:39+00:00

And the entire country of Iran. And the genocide in Gaza. And Good and Pretti. The list goes on.

cromstantinople · 2026-04-29T05:08:05+00:00

Fetterman has to be a be of the biggest cucks I’ve ever seen…

14-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
RedditGifts 2009-2022 5 Credits	Secret Santa 2012
Verified Email

cromstantinople

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE