this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2023
353 points (95.1% liked)

politics

18894 readers
2883 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 116 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (13 children)

Doesn’t fucking matter, I’m voting D because it’s a fucking binary system and the other choice is a dystopian totalitarian shithole and abstaining from voting is voting for said shithole.

[–] rayyy@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago (8 children)

it’s a fucking binary system

That can change but it requires people to get involved at ground level politics like school boards, city councils, county supervisors and township offices. It takes about ten years for these officials to reach congressional levels. The teabaggers did this successfully but they had a lot of financial support from wealthy conservatives.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (12 replies)
[–] ME5SENGER_24@lemm.ee 61 points 9 months ago (4 children)

How about no President over the age of 60? I want young politicians. I also want term limits.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 21 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Please no. An age cap is fine. But term limits will just add gas to the fire of corruption.

[–] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

This is something you can actually observe too. Districts that have implemented term limits have seen corruption go up, not down.

[–] Starkstruck@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (1 children)

How? Wouldn't that do the opposite?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 33 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (16 children)

Term limits in Congress mean we lose experience. So we're forced, right away, to rely on outside experts for everything from technical knowledge on fracking to getting a bill passed correctly. This is the first axis on which lobbyists and parties gain more control over representatives.

The second axis is campaigns themselves. A lot of time in office is actually spent campaigning and fundraising. Especially in the house where you're up every two years. This means your name and reputation is your brand. However, with term limits people will not have time to build those brands. So anyone looking to move up to the Senate, Governorship, Presidency, or wherever else will likely have to depend on "outside" money far more. They simply will not have had time to build up their own funds. This money, of course, comes with strings.

Even staying in place would require abiding by those strings in the long run. Once fundraising is no longer expected of the representatives they become vulnerable to a primary by their party. The party simply shifts funds to another candidate and that's the end of a problem for them.

The third axis is the predetermined length of a politician's public political career. Only senators and representatives that toed the line get cushy jobs provided by the party or lobbyists. While that's already true to some extent, many politicians end their career when they don't have the popularity to get elected anymore. This also means they don't have much political capital to spend getting cushy jobs unless a personal connection grabs them. With politicians being forced into retirement at young ages, with plenty of popularity and capital, they're going to get offers they can't refuse. As long as they're a "team player."

Another way to think about term limits is making the politicians employees of their party. And while that's not a bad thing in systems with a lot of parties (like ranked choice voting and proportional representation); it's catastrophic in a two party system. Because the oligarchs will waste no time literally buying the legislature.

Age Caps are great. Age Caps simply require you to retire at retirement age. And for that side step much of the tomfoolery I've described above. Long serving politicians are more accountable to their constituents and it's harder for lobbyists and party die hards to influence Congress.

[–] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Everything you wrote already happens

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (3 children)

So how about we think of something that won’t make it worse

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip 7 points 9 months ago

This is an unpopular opinion that I share. Everyone loves to talk about term limits as a solution.

Term limits will just make the revolving door to cushy corporate jobs spin faster, it doesn't solve the roots of the problem.

We need to do something about citizens united and lobbying.

The reason that congresspeoe get paid well is that we do NOT want a system where you have to be rich to be in Congress. You SHOULD be able to have a career as a politician, otherwise who would do it? That's right, only the rich.

If we wanted regular people to be able to serve in Congress with low term limits, we'd have to make sure they can go back to their career and not have to sell out to corporate interests and set up a job on K Street. Maybe if we treated public service like military service, where your job is protected by law while you serve?

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

What exactly would term limits accomplish? Bernie Sanders would be prevented from running, but people like Kyrsten Sinema would be fine.

The solution to bad candidates is to vote them out in the primary or work towards ranked choice voting so that people have a legitimate 3rd option in the general.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Awesome357@lemmy.world 45 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Not surprising, this is pretty much why he ran 4 years ago. He never wanted to be president, but his party had literally nobody (whom they would allow) that could step up and be a real contender.

[–] Xanis@lemmy.world 34 points 9 months ago (1 children)

That "allow" part being a rather substantial issue for those not really paying attention back in 2016.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jayemar@lemm.ee 28 points 9 months ago (3 children)

I'm not sure you can say he never wanted to be president. He ran in 1988 and 2008 before running in 2020. It sounds more like he always wanted to be president, but I could believe he'd prefer to not feel like he has to run for another term.

[–] ziggurism@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

he was also all geared up to run in 2016, but then his son died. If I recall, Hilary Clinton actually waited for Biden to decide he couldn't run before she entered the race.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 25 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Getting 2016 vibes this time around...

Or it is just the vocal few that are more openly speaking out...

Polling and all, it will be in the history books come 2024.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (9 children)

If the history books aren’t burned.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] books@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago (1 children)

God. Trump keeps on fucking us.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] notannpc@lemmy.world 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (7 children)

And yet, most people don’t want to vote for Biden. He won because people voted against Trump. I’m not convinced it will work again.

[–] specseaweed@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago (4 children)

I do. I’m an old progressive and he’s been the most progressive president in my lifetime outside of Carter, and honestly he’s probably been more progressive than Carter.

I don’t get the ambivalence about Biden at all from anyone who’s not a hard core Republican.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Weirdfish@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Well, I voted against Trump last time, and this time I'm split. Yes, I'm voting for Biden, but that doesn't mean I'm not voting really really hard against Trump.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] mateomaui@reddthat.com 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)
[–] Pronell@lemmy.world 78 points 9 months ago (9 children)

This is why we have no honesty in politics.

For fucks sake. He's trying to do everything he can to alert the country their democracy is in grave danger to the point of admitting he wouldn't still be there if he didn't think he had the best chance of stopping Trump.

And at the sidelines we have endless hand-wringing about his age and calls for a better candidate.

THEY ARENT STEPPING UP BECAUSE THEY AGREE BIDEN HAS THE BEST CHANCE.

Everyone complains the Democrats suck at messaging and then bitch about everything they say and do, even when it's honest, straightforward, and easy to understand.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 19 points 9 months ago (4 children)

THEY ARENT STEPPING UP BECAUSE THEY AGREE BIDEN HAS THE BEST CHANCE.

This is not at all the only conclusion one would draw from an incumbent president not drawing challengers. Incumbent challenges usually cause division and a divided party may be in a worse place than a party unifying around a bad candidate. If Biden decides to run, we're pretty much stuck with him.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] doctorcrimson@lemmy.today 12 points 9 months ago (10 children)

I liked it. Makes it seem like he isn't disconnected from the world, he knows what we want.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›