Annual "watch the president draw a clock on live tv" challenge
Annual "watch the president draw a clock on live tv" challenge
Reduce term limits to 2-4 years, can't be reelected more than twice, age requirement 25-70.
Term limits have been studied to be conclusively bad for productivity and expertise.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
And again, removing politicians doesn't mean they are replaced with someone of a different ideology, more likely just someone with a more extreme version of the same ideology.
So, should we undo term limits on the presidency?
The idea there was to basically not emulate a monarchy, but I'd essentially extend the notion of kingship to the senate with how make or break a decision from one or two individuals can be. Perceived efficacy on "how things work" is, I'd argue, otherwise derived from the current broken nature of the system as opposed to how it should be with other needed reforms. So, while I can understand 2 year terms may not be enough to really get much done or learn the ropes, so to speak, those who've been at it for more than 8 have rarely proven themselves productive. The opposite, really, because it's either obstruction or phantom promises if given more time with honorable mention to the former group as the cause.
And 70 is still entirely too high an age limit. I still say 50, with after only being feasible in a consecutive re-election attempt. Such is to avoid multiple generational divides where people either don't understand or don't care about the experiences of those 15-20+ years younger. I'd even be okay with lowering the age of the presidency a bit because if someone that young could get that far, I'd argue they'd done something right.
Maybe in days of yore but almost no one has their shit together enough to be President under 50. We've had what, 3 Presidents in the last 100+ years who were even in their 40s?
Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk
It's expertise in navigating the legal system and getting things passed. They rely on staffers (or lobbyists) to do the background work on actual policy that goes into the legislation (with the exception of MAYBE Liz Warren).
The left does it as much as the right, except our lobbies are more like the NAACP and the ACLU rather than big oil corporations.
Could one argue that this has been by design? Make education stupid expensive to shackle young adults with debt into their 30s. Finding a job within a given field also likely proving difficult, let alone with decent upward mobility. Housing market also continues to get dumber, where affording something on top of the college needs is a hard sell at a younger age. And should you be unfortunate enough to have some sort of medical condition, develop one, or be in an accident, it's all the more likely you wind up behind the 8-ball. With most struggling this way in some shape or form, of course it would be unlikely a younger candidate arises.
An otherwise unspoken point I was implying was that we shouldn't confuse age with wisdom or even experience. I see no reason why someone under 40 can't have a decent grasp of how the world works or things that need to be done to improve it. In fact, I'd make the case they're more likely to want to do something about the above issues because it's fresher in their mind and life, assuming they don't go the blackened heart GOP route and believe everyone that follows in their footsteps must suffer because they did. Knowledge is otherwise far easier to acquire today than it was even 20-some years ago. The usual concern, of course, being if what was learned was from a credible source and actually factual.
Aides and such will otherwise continue to exist as requirements to the process. Age isn't so much a concern here since they wouldn't have the final say on matters, and those with experience and the actual good will to make the country better can still contribute through this avenue. So, it's not like it'd be "one stupid kid does everything alone" either.
So if the aides are doing most of the heavy lifting in that realm...why not also have aides helping with navigating the legal landscape? You can have an expert staff of people from all ranges of life working in your corner to help you out, but I feel like you should ALSO be within 20yrs of age with said staff to understand half of what they are saying to you and suggesting.
Mitch McConnell, lol.
Hill staffer burn out is extremely high. Everyone makes peanuts that can't keep up with the COL in D.C. besides the highest positions on staff like Chief Counsel or Chief of Staff. Most do the work for 1-2 years to be able to transition to a think tank or a lobbying firm (if they are staying in D.C.) or it's just something to get on the resume and get out. Like it's impossible to work as a staffer w/o family support unless you have no student loan debt to pay off going in.
This is a budgeting issue since staffers are paid via the Rep/Sen's budget and not out of their, like, campaign fund. I'm sure rich ones could come up with some way to privately employ and pay extra staffers if they were so inclined but literally none of them do this.
Well if we didn't have term limits on the Pres, it would have been interesting to see if Reagan had it together enough still to hold off Clinton in 92.
I think Clinton would have won three terms. Not sure what happens after that since so much of that landscape is dominated by Bush 43's response to 9/11 and then the country's souring on the GOP as a result of it. Like I think Obama could have won a third term in 2016 in a match-up vs. Trump, but if it were not for Bush 43 would he have the political landscape that helped him get elected in 2008?
I think Clinton would have responded likely exactly the same way as Bush 43 after 9/11. People forget that response had an over 90% approval rating from the public and got standing ovations from both parties. The US had been warhawking all the way back since Kuwait. It wasn't a partisan thing until a year or so into Iraq.
Afghanistan sure. Iraq? Probably not.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Fucking lol