Steve_S Posted June 23, 2017 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 23, 2017 9 minutes ago, Running Gator said: Which is the problem with arbitrary term limits, you are telling someone like OO that they cannot vote for a certain person after x amount of terms. We already have a system in place for term limits, if the voters are too lazy to use it, it is not the place of the government to save them from themselves I generally agree with this, though I don't particularly have a problem with term limits on the presidency, due to its nature as an executive position. It is a whole lot easier to consolidate power long term in an executive position in government than in a legislative position. Your power in a legislature, even as a very long term, entrenched legislator, is still relegated to one vote. Otherwise, all you really have is the influence you have accumulated, which is a subjective entity that can ebb and flow. The executive can consolidate and gather power to himself over time in ways that legislators cannot. For this reason, i am nearly 50/50 divided internally on term limits for the presidency. I would not be particularly offended if they did not exist, but i don't have a massive problem with them in a vacuum either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted June 23, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.88 Content Count: 43,784 Content Per Day: 6.23 Reputation: 11,227 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted June 23, 2017 I read an article last night where bernie sanders is outraged that democracy is under attack by trump. Really? By trump? Not by the democrats who are trying to have the results of an election overturned, who are resisting trump? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted June 23, 2017 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 23, 2017 16 minutes ago, ayin jade said: I read an article last night where bernie sanders is outraged that democracy is under attack by trump. Really? By trump? Not by the democrats who are trying to have the results of an election overturned, who are resisting trump? Sanders is trying to take the democratic party over. That is why he's using such rhetoric. I would expect warren to go his direction. I don't know who else would, but others probably would. The rest of the party seems to be sort of frozen in fear as far as what direction to go, other than the current old standby, which is to just attack trump. That's almost certainly a failing strategy in the long term if that's all they're really going to do. The thing that Schumer and Pelosi have going for them is that they account for a lot of the fundraising of the party as a whole. The republicans look like they are acting, doing things, changing obamacare, for instance. The democrats look like they are just kind of caught trying to figure out what to do. If sanders tries to take over the party in a non-presidential election year, it will just split it probably. If he were able to get a presidential nomination, he could do it then. I don't see how he or anyone else does it with congressional elections 16 months away. I was reading some democrats comments to each other on a twitter story the other day. It really was nothing like I'd ever really seen, the recriminations and so forth. I've seen liberals argue with each other, but they were using attacks on each other they typically reserve for republicans and, most recently, trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Running Gator Posted June 23, 2017 Group: Royal Member * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 91 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 10,596 Content Per Day: 3.73 Reputation: 2,743 Days Won: 25 Joined: 06/16/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted June 23, 2017 1 hour ago, Steve_S said: I generally agree with this, though I don't particularly have a problem with term limits on the presidency, due to its nature as an executive position. It is a whole lot easier to consolidate power long term in an executive position in government than in a legislative position. Your power in a legislature, even as a very long term, entrenched legislator, is still relegated to one vote. Otherwise, all you really have is the influence you have accumulated, which is a subjective entity that can ebb and flow. The executive can consolidate and gather power to himself over time in ways that legislators cannot. For this reason, i am nearly 50/50 divided internally on term limits for the presidency. I would not be particularly offended if they did not exist, but i don't have a massive problem with them in a vacuum either. I am way less bothered by the Presidential term limits as it is part of the constitution and there is a very high threshold for getting things added to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 23, 2017 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 593 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 55,875 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 27,625 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 23, 2017 3 hours ago, MorningGlory said: Who said anything about Jim Inholf? Or that he can't represent you? What? I've never even heard of him. he's been my senator for many years and you are wanting to say he can't run again, thus he can't represent me..... and I don't like it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve_S Posted June 23, 2017 Group: Servant Followers: 25 Topic Count: 275 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 5,208 Content Per Day: 1.00 Reputation: 1,893 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/02/2010 Status: Offline Share Posted June 23, 2017 16 minutes ago, Running Gator said: I am way less bothered by the Presidential term limits as it is part of the constitution and there is a very high threshold for getting things added to it. I agree. It's interesting that it still got enough support, in spite of roosevelt's popularity to pass. His approval rating only dropped below 50 once and it was in the 65-80 percent range for most of his last 8 or 10 years, including the prewar years when he was not a wartime president. I suppose folks probably sensed the danger. The republicans introduced it, but the democrats were pretty much ruling the roost then, so it took a lot of democrat support to pass as well. Perhaps there was also a bit of not wanting someone "blocking the path" nearly indefinitely from the democrat side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts