President Biden's first term in office

[Cope]

I'm commenting on your opinion, not the Constitution.

You can allow yourself a little scope for dreaming... if you so choose. Your opinions are not bound by the Constitution, and with elder age limits, we're definitely talking your opinion.

On one hand you're basing your opinion that a lower age limit is good on the SCOTUS or Constitution or what ever. But on the other hand your opinion that there should be an upper limit to electoral office has no precedence in the US. Even allowing for justification for a minimum age (which I don't agree with), it is not justification for a maximum age. Which to my eyes, makes your opinion somewhat hypocritical, and the whole conversation is on shaky ground - especially when we take into account your often libertarian stance on issues.

You may disagree with my opinion on your opinion. That's your prerogative. I'm not sure you're ever going to be able to convince me that it is a good idea to judge someone's competence though an arbitrarily assigned age number. You're on your own with that one dawg

Characterizing an argument as an “opinion” neither refutes nor diminishes it.

[antaeus]

Characterizing an argument as an “opinion” neither refutes nor diminishes it.

That's your opinion.

[irontaino]

You should judge leadership on it's capability, not on it's demographic or life stage. Both Biden and Trump are prohibitively good at what they do. It's too easy to throw away capability with a wave of the geriatric stick, but that's lazy.

If not age limits, then definitely term limits. People just being congressmen forever is how we get the McConnells or the Lindsay Grahams, the people been there so long that they don't worry about the future they're working so tirelessly to destroy. Even if incompetents like MTG are voted in again, they'd at least have a finite amount of time to be in Congress.

[Heathen Hammer]

The fundamental flaw of republican/democratic systems is absence of accountability. Politician can get elected, regardless on which ideology/platform, backtrack on most of his promises, do a bunch of unpopular nobody that voted for them asked for and worst consequence for him is not getting elected again, or still getting re-elected because opposition is even less what electorate wants. Hence why despite calling themselves "democratic" most Western governments are just oligarchies that pay lip service to "electorate", while ignoring its interests and rights at any moment of convenience.

[Coughdrop addict]

Qshaman sets the record straight about how nothing is ever his fault and everyone famous but Trump drinks the blood of children.



A brilliant insight into the mind of the far-right. At the root of it, they have already convinced themselves they're being persecuted regardless of how the rest of society actually treats them. Their default state is a delusional belief that they are being oppressed by a society that doesn't appreciate their greatness. Any time they are told no or to do something that causes them discomfort, their mind interprets the setback as a deliberate act of oppression by people who MUST BE pure evil to contradict or displease the very embodiment of good every one of them sees themselves as. With that in mind it's easy to see how Democrats saying thing like climate change was real and gays and blacks were equal citizens was filtered through the far-right victim complex into "All Democrats are cannibalistic pedophiles!"

[alhoon]

If not age limits, then definitely term limits. People just being congressmen forever is how we get the McConnells or the Lindsay Grahams, the people been there so long that they don't worry about the future they're working so tirelessly to destroy. Even if incompetents like MTG are voted in again, they'd at least have a finite amount of time to be in Congress.

Term limits are the reason Trump got elected.
Absence of Term Limits are the reason that FDR managed to turn USA from a regional power to a Superpower.

Do you seriously consider that Obama would have lost to Trump in 2016? When even with Hillary the election was that close?


Let the people decide when they have had enough.
By replacing a brilliant man at the top 1% of excellence after some arbitrary time limit, you're more likely to get someone much less talented than another one at this top level because people that are the cream of the top are hard to find and they don't often go to politics.
Term limits are shooting yourself in the foot and Replacing Obama with Trump.

The fundamental flaw of republican/democratic systems is absence of accountability. Politician can get elected, regardless on which ideology/platform, backtrack on most of his promises, do a bunch of unpopular nobody that voted for them asked for and worst consequence for him is not getting elected again, or still getting re-elected because opposition is even less what electorate wants. Hence why despite calling themselves "democratic" most Western governments are just oligarchies that pay lip service to "electorate", while ignoring its interests and rights at any moment of convenience.

This is very hard to argue against.
But who would hold these people accountable? Even if you make the perfect neutral panel, it would start a slide within an election cycle and then it would be partisan tool within 3 elections.

[antaeus]

Term limits are the reason Trump got elected.
Absence of Term Limits are the reason that FDR managed to turn USA from a regional power to a Superpower.

Do you seriously consider that Obama would have lost to Trump in 2016? When even with Hillary the election was that close?


Let the people decide when they have had enough.
By replacing a brilliant man at the top 1% of excellence after some arbitrary time limit, you're more likely to get someone much less talented than another one at this top level because people that are the cream of the top are hard to find and they don't often go to politics.
Term limits are shooting yourself in the foot and Replacing Obama with Trump.

Even a casual perusal of the democracy index, alongside the list of term limits reveals that there is no obvious relationship between term limits and how free or democratic a country is.

If anything, there is a cluster of the most mature democracies with no set term limits - perhaps because it gives leaders the opportunity to make inter-generational change, which is change that sticks, rather than be focused on short term thinking.

[Sir Adrian]

If you bother to check at the countries with no terms isn Europe and the americas the vast majority are constitutional monarchies, so you dot need limits because the monarch is the one who appoints people and takes care of any rapscallions. In fact the only republics without term limits, in Europe and the americas, are either banana republics like Suriname and Nicaragua, Italy who have had exactly two governments last a full term since 1946 and places like Iceland where everyone knows/is related to everyone anyway

[antaeus]

If you bother to check at the countries with no terms isn Europe and the americas the vast majority are constitutional monarchies, so you dot need limits because the monarch is the one who appoints people and takes care of any rapscallions. In fact the only republics without term limits, in Europe and the americas, are either banana republics like Suriname and Nicaragua, Italy who have had exactly two governments last a full term since 1946 and places like Iceland where everyone knows/is related to everyone anyway

Yes and no... Constitutional monarchies would for the most part, stop being monarchies the moment their monarchs denied an elected political leader their place.

But you are onto something, but not for the reason you think. Constitutional monarchies are governed by a parliamentary majority, not by an individual elected leader. The leader is the head of a party, and the party can change that leader when they're failing to do their job. The parliamentary system itself can manage rapscallions, and can punish any leader who is failing. The legitimacy of power is in the body of parliament, not an individual leader - which makes rapscallions gaining sole power more difficult.

But alhoon's point still stands... we shouldn't be just swapping leaders because an arbitrary measure of time is up. We should swap them when they can no longer gain our confidence in their competence.

[Ludicus]

A brilliant insight into the mind of the far-right. At the root of it, they have already convinced themselves they're being persecuted regardless of how the rest of society actually treats them...With that in mind it's easy to see how Democrats saying thing like climate change was real and gays and blacks were equal citizens was filtered through the far-right victim complex into "All Democrats are cannibalistic pedophiles!"

Indeed.
But the question is, what drives political polarization? what can be done?
Don’t get me wrong for what I am about to say. Here it goes: as far back as the 1870s,the US Democratic Party was inegalitarian and segregationist towards Afro-Americans, but more egalitarian than the Republicans towards the white population.
It was not until the 1960s, under the pressure from black militants, that the Democratic Party was to turn its back on its heavy segregationist past and to support the cause of civil rights and racial equality. Since then, black electorate is overwhelming democrat. In the 1950s-60s, the vote for the Democratic Party -and socialist parties in Europe-used to be associated with lower education and lower income voters. Not anymore.
In some countries, there is is only one category truly unites the right wing: xenophobia (as immigration is one of, if not the main reason for right-wing populism in Europe and the U.S. right-wing populism is less of a threat in my country. For now...)
Nowadays, the traditional left in the US (and other countries around the world) has a significant proportion of high education voters, and the traditional right has a significant proportion of high income/wealth voters.
What happens when the lower and middle classes feel left behind? The rise of populism. Racism/nativism is now an powerful force dividing the poor, the reason why we see more xenophobic populism and identity-based politics (Trump,Bolsonaro, Le Pen, Modi, AfD, Brexit, etc).
In the US, the Democratic Party gradually shifted from slavery party to the party of the poor whites, the New Deal party, and finally the party of the rich whites and the poor minorities. Pro-slavery/segregationist democrats gradually became the New Deal Party defending poor whites - leading to policies which also benefit poor blacks. Low-education people felt abandoned by left-democratic parties and threatened by competition with foreign countries/workers.
Societies use ideology to justify inequality,and in a vicious circle, inequality then feeds ideology. I'm not sure that everyone knows, but from the 1930s to the 1970-80s, the U.S. pursued an ambitious policy of reduction in social inequalities. In the 1930s, the U.S. implemented a federal minimum wage, well before the European countries. For almost half a century, the rate of taxation applicable to the highest American incomes (over one million dollars a year) was on average 82%.The estate tax, which was just as progressive, with rates in the range of 70-80%, reduced the concentration of American capital.
All this aroused strong resistance, in particular among the financial elites and in the reactionary fringes of the white electorate.Right now, from 2010 to 2018, the wealthiest 400 families in America paid an average of 8.2 % of their income in taxes.
What I am about to say will not please the right wing of the Democratic Party : what makes Trump possible today is the fact that the Democratic Party in the US has become in the last 30/40 years a party of the elite. In the last decades successive Democratic administrations are said to have done everything they could to improve the life of the most disadvantaged, but it’s not true. If the Democratic Party wants to regain the votes of the lower income voters, more needs to be done in terms of social justice and redistribution.
The US, a tale of two countries,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Is it too late? I have been reading that Trump's Next Coup Has Already Begun - The Atlantic
---
More on the subject, Brahmin Left Versus Merchant Right - Oxford Academic
Polarization: What Do We Know and What Can We Do About It?

[Heathen Hammer]

Term limits are the reason Trump got elected.
Absence of Term Limits are the reason that FDR managed to turn USA from a regional power to a Superpower.
Do you seriously consider that Obama would have lost to Trump in 2016? When even with Hillary the election was that close?

Trump got elected by anti-establishment fatigue, caused by decades of centrist lobbyist "let them eat cake" policies done under presidents from either side of the aisle.
Would Trump won against Obama? I think he would, since unlike 2008 Obama, 2016 Obama had a huge catalogue of scandals and dirty laundry, from war crimes abroad to revelations of how Obama administration illegally spies on its own people.
Also FDR did not turn US into a superpower, if anything FDR was a liability and his mistakes partially are the reason why WW2 was so destructive.

This is very hard to argue against.
But who would hold these people accountable? Even if you make the perfect neutral panel, it would start a slide within an election cycle and then it would be partisan tool within 3 elections.

Because power has to be balanced with responsibility. I like the idea of public voting on fate of politicians after their term, including extensive jail terms and even death sentences for very harsh crimes. Also another problem is that politicians and government officials in general enjoy too much privacy. It would be interesting to force them to wear gopro cameras 24/7, like they do with cops and have them feed to a government website that anyone can watch. That could significantly reduce corruption and lobbying.

[Cyclops]

...

But alhoon's point still stands... we shouldn't be just swapping leaders because an arbitrary measure of time is up. We should swap them when they can no longer gain our confidence in their competence.

Gladstone was in his late 80's when he formed his last administration. He became increasingly radical as he aged, having evolved from the "rising hope of the stern unbending Tories" to being in favour of Irish home Rule and saving religious minorities against standing realpolitik positions in Eastern Europe: his Christian faith led him to policies most politicians could not believe, but the electorate loved him. A dangerous man indeed, no doubt the Imperialists in his own party and the rack renters in the Tory party hated him with a vengeance. Intelligent, capable and effective into his 90's: maybe hanging out with paedos like Epstein rots the brain?

[alhoon]

If you bother to check at the countries with no terms isn Europe and the americas the vast majority are constitutional monarchies, so you dot need limits because the monarch is the one who appoints people and takes care of any rapscallions. In fact the only republics without term limits, in Europe and the americas, are either banana republics like Suriname and Nicaragua, Italy who have had exactly two governments last a full term since 1946 and places like Iceland where everyone knows/is related to everyone anyway

Greece has no term limits. And I don't think we had a government go for more than 2 full terms. I think 2 full terms is the best we got, like ... twice in the past 40 years.

[Abdülmecid I]

According to the list of Wikipedia, Greece also has term limits. Like in the majority of cases, the Greek president cannot serve more than two terms of five years each. Limited terms only apply to heads of state, not heads of government. The difference is that Greece, unlike the United States or France, which are presidential and semi-presidential republics respectively, is a parliamentary republic, so the power effectively rests with the prime-minister, not the president. However, the point remains: Most of the democratic republics have implemented presidential term limits, but nowhere is there a term limit for governments or parliaments. That would be redundant, anyway, as parliaments and governments change at least in every election (the former usually change in an even faster pace, as a result of reshuffling, political coalitions and, in the good, old days military coups).

[antaeus]

That suggests to me that any place where power and legitimacy is embodied in a single person, has an inherent weakness in their system... term limits are an attempt to temper that weakness. But they don't really address it directly or efficiently.

The weakness is how to recycle an incompetent leader, not how to recycle any leader. Term limits are a baby-and-bath-water solution that has been better solved elsewhere by embodying legitimacy within a parliamentary body - which by it's nature, experiences regular churn of personalities that don't cut it, but supports ongoing competent leadership without the need for term limits.

[Heathen Hammer]

Term limits clearly aren't enough to solve the issue. Even with term limits, politician can still remain in power indefinitely if he gerrymanders elections and/or opposition is specifically designed to scare electorate into voting in the former.
I think in general "representative democracy" is an inherently broken system, which was never "designed" to work as democracy in the first place, but rather a pseudo-democratic facade for a de-facto oligarchy, where banks and corporation rule, while plebs only get to elect talking heads to "represent them", with 0 negative consequences for failing to do so effectively.
Direct democracy, on the other hand, is a far better option in terms of getting voter's wishes across, but implies inherent complexity.

[antaeus]

Direct democracy can be prone to tyranny of the majority. This is manageable in developed societies, but in those which already have underlying structural or ethnic conflicts, can lead to rather nasty outcomes.

While I agree, there are inefficiencies in representative democracy, those tend to be exaggerated in a two party or first-past-the-post environment. The balance for me seems to be mixed or proportional parliamentary systems, where smaller minority views can be aired, and negotiated for.

This is another thread tho...

How about Biden and that filibuster chat?

[alhoon]

Direct democracy, on the other hand, is a far better option in terms of getting voter's wishes across, but implies inherent complexity.

Direct democracy can lead to some very nasty outcomes and it prone to abuse. For example, what happens if the direct democracy of State-13 brings back slavery in some form? I am not talking raids to grab slaves, I am talking about "Illegal Immigrants have no rights and would be put to work by the state in exchange for a pittance of food." kind of slavery or serfdom or other forms of indentured servitude.

How about Biden and that filibuster chat?

It is rare that I find myself respecting Biden these days. I agree completely with the PotUS there.
Filibuster is very important and needed. Perhaps not 60/40 but 55/45 or something.
HOWEVER voting rights are MORE important.

I understand why Biden that loved the senate wanted to respect that rule, and I understand why this to him seems like the precipice. He has to sacrifice his nephew to save his kid. That's the decision there. Of course it took him time. And I respect him for not throwing caution to the wind.

I am concerned what happens in 2023 if Republicans win senate majority though...

[Heathen Hammer]

Direct democracy can lead to some very nasty outcomes and it prone to abuse. For example, what happens if the direct democracy of State-13 brings back slavery in some form? I am not talking raids to grab slaves, I am talking about "Illegal Immigrants have no rights and would be put to work by the state in exchange for a pittance of food." kind of slavery or serfdom or other forms of indentured servitude.

It could happen in both representative and direct democracies, I think what prevents situations like that is presence of constitution, which again, is something that can be present in both systems.
Having said that, direct democracy does effectively prevent abuse of power via lobbying and corruption which on its own is a quality of life improvement, which representative system lacks in its entirety.
Overall I'd also look into "internet democracy" concept, as technology would allow us to potentially host many mini-referendums, where concerned members of the public can directly vote on policy issues that concern them, which would greatly help in eroding electoral differences between, say blue and red states.

It is rare that I find myself respecting Biden these days. I agree completely with the PotUS there.
Filibuster is very important and needed. Perhaps not 60/40 but 55/45 or something.
HOWEVER voting rights are MORE important.

I understand why Biden that loved the senate wanted to respect that rule, and I understand why this to him seems like the precipice. He has to sacrifice his nephew to save his kid. That's the decision there. Of course it took him time. And I respect him for not throwing caution to the wind.

I am concerned what happens in 2023 if Republicans win senate majority though...

Knowing the usual dynamic of underdog gaining ground in midterms, If I were a Democrat, I'd want to keep filibuster until at least the 2028. Biden most likely simply doesn't care, since he realizes that he is very unlikely to get another term given his age, and having "good legacy" is probably more important to him or whoever handles him, even at a cost of his own party.

[alhoon]

Having said that, direct democracy does effectively prevent abuse of power via lobbying and corruption which on its own is a quality of life improvement,

Oh, and you think lobbies cannot exist in Direct democracy and exert influence through corruption? Guess what happens if the boss of the 200 people company says "if the law we're voting tonight doesn't pass, it would be baaaad tidings for our business. I don't want to influence you, but if the vote doesn't pass, dire predictions would force me to fire 100 of you. Please vote your conscience. "

What I would like to see is a mixed system with gradually more direct democracy through various secure internet technologies. Things like referendums on "should we be more tough on immigration or more forgiving?" "Should we legalize Marijuana, or not?" in yearly ballots.

I would like to see a system where 5%-10% of the "ruling bodies" are taken by virtual representatives. For example, in the Greek Parliament, hold 20 MP slots. 2-3 days before each major legislation, allow people to vote securely through the internet. The votes of these 20 "virtual MPs" are given proportionally to the results of this cyber-vote. I.e. if the yes vote is 35% and the no vote is 65% then assume that 13 of these virtual MPs voted "no" and 7 of these voted yes.
Not to mention that if 65% of the people vote "no" a lot of MPs that would vote yes, will re-think their stance.