|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 15 2021 02:48 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 02:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I just think that term limits are the best solution.
It would be the best way to address several different problems, including entrenched power/money, the motivations of elected officials, and the skewed age population in congress. Something like 12 years in house, 12 in senate and 8 as president max?
Great idea, so everybody who is reaaaaally good at the thing and has a lot of experience being a lawmaker can kindly f... off after 12 years as a senator, even if he or she is both popular and competent.
I mean thank fuck we had Pelosi and not some rookie to navigate the Trump era. She knows what she is doing better than anyone in this congress. And that showed.
|
I wonder what people would think if instead of Term limits we have consecutive limits. Rome didn't traditionally allow people to become consols after the term they were elected to that position.
What if we didn't allow senators to serve two consecutive terms? Six years is more than presidents and two six year terms is I think a good tipping point for people to not want them to be in power more than. Having a gap Persimably allows for a reexamining and reorientation of the views while still allowing some sort of institutional experience for committee chairs and whatnot.
|
On January 15 2021 02:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I just think that term limits are the best solution.
It would be the best way to address several different problems, including entrenched power/money, the motivations of elected officials, and the skewed age population in congress.
Term limits are absolutely not the way forward, as I've said on these boards numerous times in the past. They guarantee that the only entities with long term institutional memory relative to the legislative process are special interests. Term limits are directly to blame for the awful state of some state legislatures, Michigan being the example I'm most familiar with. ALEC and other evil doers love it when folks push for term limits for a reason.
|
On January 15 2021 03:06 Sermokala wrote:
I wonder what people would think if instead of Term limits we have consecutive limits. Rome didn't traditionally allow people to become consols after the term they were elected to that position.
What if we didn't allow senators to serve two consecutive terms? Six years is more than presidents and two six year terms is I think a good tipping point for people to not want them to be in power more than. Having a gap Persimably allows for a reexamining and reorientation of the views while still allowing some sort of institutional experience for committee chairs and whatnot. Because if you tell them to take a break for 6 years they are probably not coming back.
|
Feinstein does need to be primaried. Is her alzheimers/cognitive decline confirmed ? I've been hearing that her memory isn't the best, but only from aides afaik.
|
Norway28709 Posts
I mean, I did just argue against hard and fast age limits. But even then, 87 is really old. (But also again, I wanted RBG to survive, not to resign. )
|
On January 15 2021 03:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I mean, I did just argue against hard and fast age limits. But even then, 87 is really old. (But also again, I wanted RBG to survive, not to resign. )
Well cognitive issues can appear relatively early, so age wouldn't really make sense. Some people develop it at 40, some at 70. If she has alzheimers now, she cannot be allowed to run again.
|
United States24741 Posts
The FAA has said it will never have an age limit for being cleared to fly recreationally because there is no age where people go from being capable to incapable. Some people just don't have the mental facilities to be a pilot. Other people do when they are young but by 50 they probably shouldn't be flying for safety reasons. Some people at 85 are as capable mentally as I am right now while I work on advanced ratings. Generally you only get worse as you get older, but if your ability started at a high level, and decayed very slowly, you could be quite old and still reasonably capable.
The same principle should apply to holding public office. However, if someone has last the mental ability to do the job, they shouldn't do it. Just don't set an arbitrary age deadline.
|
I'm fine with an arbitrary age deadline to start having screenings with publicly available results for certain medical conditions for congress people (like 75 or so for alzheimers), but I don't think we need a hard age limit at all.
|
On January 15 2021 04:49 Nevuk wrote:
I'm fine with an arbitrary age deadline to start having screenings with publicly available results for certain medical conditions for congress people (like 75 or so for alzheimers), but I don't think we need a hard age limit at all.
I'm not in favor of age limits bu I also don't think a panel of doctors deciding a popular politician like Trump or Bernie can't run is in the realm of possibility, that would never be accepted.
|
On January 15 2021 05:14 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 04:49 Nevuk wrote:
I'm fine with an arbitrary age deadline to start having screenings with publicly available results for certain medical conditions for congress people (like 75 or so for alzheimers), but I don't think we need a hard age limit at all. I'm not in favor of age limits bu I also don't think a panel of doctors deciding a popular politician like Trump or Bernie can't run is in the realm of possibility, that would never be accepted.
Forgoing whether or not the populace will accept it, who says the doctors wont just okay any and every politician when they're told to do so?
imo, the best way to keep the US from being a Kingdom of the Geriatric is to prevent fundraising from being so powerful and influential politically. It would help prevent these people with 30+ years in Congress from having webs of connections that make them the pocketbooks of the parties and help make primarying people easier. Depowering money in politics is frankly something that needs to happen anyways, the wealth disparity in the US is untenable and the decline of the poor has been happening for decades through Republican and Democrat controlled presidencies, and congresses.
|
I'm much more open to age limits rather than term limits for the reasons farv pointed out.
Personally I suspect it's a function of how few representatives the US has for its population. It takes forever to build the connections needed to get a seat, and once there, the individual voter is so removed from their representative that there's a lot of inertia.
Really it's just another example of how poorly democracy functions in selecting for merit. It's well and good to say that a person should be able to do the job as long as they are able, but for pilots there is presumably someone qualified and independent who is making that assessment. Voters are just not very good at this.
Anything to push that information into the public sphere, like cognitive function tests over a certain age, seems worth looking at if it can be done in a non-partisan way.
|
Id also like to say a massive downside of these people having such long political careers is that they accumulate abnormal levels of wealth and that becomes their normal. They become completely and utterly detached from the conditions of average Americans and become completely unwilling to be challenged in their views. I'm sure many of these people think they're great leaders doing great things to improve the lives of Americans, but if we look at the state of the US its obviously not that case.
30+ years of utter detachment from the problems of the non-uber wealthy likely degrades the ability to actually care about the issues facing the average American beyond how it effects your political career.
|
A little, lighter-hearted tidbit that I found hilarious (warning, it's not necessarily the fault of the Kuchners, secret service is complicated, read the WaPost article in its entirety before judging anyone. Not to be compared with the Trumps charging secret service for accomodation when they decide to visit their own properties, which should be illegal to me) :
Ivanka Trump, President Donald Trump's eldest daughter, and her husband Jared Kushner, a top aide to the president, have spent about $100,000 on bathroom accommodations for their Secret Service detail after prohibiting the agents from using the bathrooms in their Washington mansion, The Washington Post reported Thursday.
Law enforcement officials told The Post that the president's daughter and son-in-law barred the Secret Service from using their 6.5 bathrooms when they first moved into their home in DC's wealthy Kalorama neighborhood in 2017. Instead, they offered the agents a porta-potty outside on the sidewalk.
But after multiple neighbors complained about the porta-potty, the agents were forced to relieve themselves at a bathroom in former President Barack Obama's garage nearby, at the vice president's compound a mile up Massachusetts avenue, and at businesses in the area.
Finally, in September 2017, the federal government began renting a $3,000-a-month studio apartment across the street from the Trump-Kushner residence for the agents' bathroom needs.
(This quote is from a businessinsider article, the full source is below and a pretty funny read)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/14/secret-service-bathroom-ivanka-trump-jared-kushner/
|
On January 15 2021 01:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 01:36 Mohdoo wrote:
If Feinstein actually tries to run again, there needs to be a giant battle to primary her. Personally I think it’s inappropriate for anyone over the age of 70 to be an elected official. It really depends doesn't it? If someone is great at what they do and in perfect health mentally and good enough physically, I see no problem with folks holding office late in their life. It's just like everything else: there should be a balance a d there shouldn't only be old folks.
I want to promote here this podcast episode I recently listened to, which talks about the problems of aging in the judiciary. Supposedly many in the US (and not just the Supreme Court) continue well into their 80’s.
https://www.alabseries.com/episodes/episode-19-gerontocracy
|
The issue with term limits for legislatures is that when they've been tried, what actually happens is that rather than the lobbyists just having outsized influence, they start literally writing the bills because no one in the legislature has enough experience to actually write good laws (this is what happened in Michigan, for instance). It's like any other job : you want well qualified and experienced people in those positions.
Most of the worst issues really could be resolved by increasing the size. I've talked about it a lot of times, but the reapportionment act of 1929 really is what I'd blame for the dysfunction and lack of representation in the house for the non-wealthy.
|
On January 15 2021 07:12 Nevuk wrote:
The issue with term limits for legislatures is that when they've been tried, what actually happens is that rather than the lobbyists just having outsized influence, they start literally writing the bills because no one in the legislature has enough experience to actually write good laws (this is what happened in Michigan, for instance). It's like any other job : you want well qualified and experienced people in those positions.
Most of the worst issues really could be resolved by increasing the size. I've talked about it a lot of times, but the reapportionment act of 1929 really is what I'd blame for the dysfunction and lack of representation in the house for the non-wealthy.
Do you think theres any political reality to increasing the size of the House? Does that potentially neutrally affect Republicans, or is that one of the things thats going to help Democrats so Republicans wont sign on and when Republicans dont sign on Democrats wont sign on?
Same question about gerrymandering tbh. With control over the House, Senate, and Presidency do Democrats have the power to address the grotesque gerrymandering situations around the US?
I'm honestly curious if there are major changes to the US electoral power structure that can/would potentially be done with the 2 years of confirmed Democrat control we see. Is all of it theoretically possible, but going to be blocked by Manchin, or is it something thats generally not within Congressional/Presidential power?
|
On January 15 2021 07:29 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 07:12 Nevuk wrote:
The issue with term limits for legislatures is that when they've been tried, what actually happens is that rather than the lobbyists just having outsized influence, they start literally writing the bills because no one in the legislature has enough experience to actually write good laws (this is what happened in Michigan, for instance). It's like any other job : you want well qualified and experienced people in those positions.
Most of the worst issues really could be resolved by increasing the size. I've talked about it a lot of times, but the reapportionment act of 1929 really is what I'd blame for the dysfunction and lack of representation in the house for the non-wealthy.
Do you think theres any political reality to increasing the size of the House? Does that potentially neutrally affect Republicans, or is that one of the things thats going to help Democrats so Republicans wont sign on and when Republicans dont sign on Democrats wont sign on? Same question about gerrymandering tbh. With control over the House, Senate, and Presidency do Democrats have the power to address the grotesque gerrymandering situations around the US? I'm honestly curious if there are major changes to the US electoral power structure that can/would potentially be done with the 2 years of confirmed Democrat control we see. Is all of it theoretically possible, but going to be blocked by Manchin, or is it something thats generally not within Congressional/Presidential power?
I mean, what’s the update on DC statehood?
|
Biden's 2,000 dollar checks are down to 1,400 dollar checks now, apparently the last bill's 600 dollars is counted as part of the total 2,000 dollars. Lots of people are pretty pissed off, I actually found out a few days ago on the irs website, so I was prepared, but it feels very shitty to have someone say, "2000 dollar checks!" and then go, "1400 dollar checks!" and try and count it as a 2000 dollar check. By this logic why not give everyone 200 dollars. That math checks out, 1200 + 600 = 1800, 2000 - 1800 = 200 dollars, that would still count as a 2000 dollar check right!
While I acknowledge this as still an overall good thing, its the kind of things thats still going to piss people off and theres no reason for it. Put the 2000 dollars up or SAY 1400 dollars. The rhetoric around this latest check has been centered around 2000 dollars, and this kind of "well technically..." is not going to make Democrats look good, its going to validate fears that Biden and Democrats aren't going to commit to the kind of economic policy to get a lot of the working class through this pandemic.
The people I've told about this have basically all responded with, "what, are you fucking kidding me?"
I hope this is going to be a continued thing, because a one time reduced (in the eyes of people receiving it) payment is going to feel a lot like the 1200 bucks in April, and thats been ridiculed to hell and back as inadequate.
The overall stats of the bill are (copying from a tweet because of the infinite paywalls on articles)
$400b to fight Covid
$1400 checks
$440b in relief to communities/businesses
$400 dollar unemployment insurance benefits
$1.9t in total
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/14/business/biden-economy.html
Theres a lot of fours there lol.
+ Show Spoiler +On January 15 2021 08:57 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 15 2021 07:29 Zambrah wrote:On January 15 2021 07:12 Nevuk wrote:
The issue with term limits for legislatures is that when they've been tried, what actually happens is that rather than the lobbyists just having outsized influence, they start literally writing the bills because no one in the legislature has enough experience to actually write good laws (this is what happened in Michigan, for instance). It's like any other job : you want well qualified and experienced people in those positions.
Most of the worst issues really could be resolved by increasing the size. I've talked about it a lot of times, but the reapportionment act of 1929 really is what I'd blame for the dysfunction and lack of representation in the house for the non-wealthy.
Do you think theres any political reality to increasing the size of the House? Does that potentially neutrally affect Republicans, or is that one of the things thats going to help Democrats so Republicans wont sign on and when Republicans dont sign on Democrats wont sign on? Same question about gerrymandering tbh. With control over the House, Senate, and Presidency do Democrats have the power to address the grotesque gerrymandering situations around the US? I'm honestly curious if there are major changes to the US electoral power structure that can/would potentially be done with the 2 years of confirmed Democrat control we see. Is all of it theoretically possible, but going to be blocked by Manchin, or is it something thats generally not within Congressional/Presidential power? I mean, what’s the update on DC statehood?
I havent heard anything about it, atm the two things the Biden administration will be doing first are the Covid bill and then likely the Senate trial for Trump. It would be nice to know what Manchin and the other cockblock Democrats thoughts are, given theyre the new Mitch McConnells and have all of the power to stop these things from happening now.
EDIT: Btw, that was a good podcast, I enjoyed it, I've been enjoying Supreme Myths lately, I might switch over to the one you linked when I haul my fat ass to the gym now, lol, its a lot more lively and the audio balance isnt god awful (SUPREME MYTHS.)
|
United States24741 Posts
On January 15 2021 08:59 Zambrah wrote:
Biden's 2,000 dollar checks are down to 1,400 dollar checks now, apparently the last bill's 600 dollars is counted as part of the total 2,000 dollars. Lots of people are pretty pissed off, I actually found out a few days ago on the irs website, so I was prepared, but it feels very shitty to have someone say, "2000 dollar checks!" and then go, "1400 dollar checks!" and try and count it as a 2000 dollar check. By this logic why not give everyone 200 dollars. That math checks out, 1200 + 600 = 1800, 2000 - 1800 = 200 dollars, that would still count as a 2000 dollar check right!
I haven't been following closely since most of it doesn't directly affect me, but who was it who said the underlined? Did the misleading language actually come out of Biden and his direct representatives? I wouldn't be surprised if everything he and his team has done has been accurate (not misleading), but has been improperly paraphrased by reporters or others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
