All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[numberthirty]

...

I have a question. Why are there no term limits in congress? I like at Mitch and Chabott who have been in office for over 30 and 25 years. Pelosi and Shummer have been in over 20. Why arnt there term limits? Has anyone tried to pass a law for term limits? Like the President has term limits. Governors have term limits. Why are there not for that branch? it seems foolish to me.

There's arguments against the idea of a Congressperson with, let's say, a two term limit.

If you know you won't have to sustain an entire career, why not just completely sell out to the money in politics in an attempt to make as much as you can during those two terms?

[babyblob]

But he didn't fire on anyone until he was in the midst of a confrontation with someone who was attempting what would probably be assault with a deadly weapon in any other situation?

I'm not saying I can absolutely discount what you believe was the case.

Just that someone who was out to do what you say had ample chance to do so before he did. If that was his motivation, does the restraint up until that point really add up?

He came there with a gun. Why would he do that unless he was hoping for a confrontation? He knew that these protests have turned violent, he knows that there are people who do not make the best choices. He knew that people were going to call him out at best and attack him at worse. He was not defending himself because he out himself into a situation that he hoped to be in. Like I said before on here. he was looking for a fight. he wwould not have left without a body. He and others can say he was defending himself. But the fact is he he wanted to shoot someone.

[Mister Mets]

If he gave a damn about the family og Blake, if he gave a damn about Blake and what was going on he would have said something long before now. I know this orning on Fox news they said he was going there to meet with law enforcement officers to show support. He had no plans to meet with the family. So meeting with the family must be a new thing.

I think it is funny how Trump is quick to denounce violent protesters when they are Dems or Black Lives matter. At least that is who he accuses them of being. Yet his supporters who commit acts of violence or intimidation are given a free pass.

I have a question. Why are there no term limits in congress? I like at Mitch and Chabott who have been in office for over 30 and 25 years. Pelosi and Shummer have been in over 20. Why arnt there term limits? Has anyone tried to pass a law for term limits? Like the President has term limits. Governors have term limits. Why are there not for that branch? it seems foolish to me.

One explanation is that members of legislative branches are different from executives. Mitch McConnell is one of a hundred Senators. Nancy Pelosi is one of 435 members of the House of Representatives. A legislature is going to be a mix of personalities, so you can have a combination of veterans and newcomers, whereas an executive position is ultimately going to have one person in charge, which means there are different concerns and different needs.

Terms limits for legislators has some disadvantages. It creates a system where lobbyists and political staffers have the institutional knowledge, and would be more able to take advantage of political newcomers. I also expect the politicians to figure out ways to circumvent any term limits, potentially with musical chairs as legislators stay in power by changing positions (a term-limited congressman runs for state attorney general, a term limited state senator runs for city council, etc.)

[Malvolio]

https://www.comicsands.com/new-hamps...c73b-306341081

Another one for WBE.

[worstblogever]

https://www.comicsands.com/new-hamps...c73b-306341081

Another one for WBE.

Ugh. What a sumbitch. Forsythe has at least resigned and dropped out of running for re-election in 2020 since that article you posted dropped.

But one more for the queue.

[godisawesome]

He came there with a gun. Why would he do that unless he was hoping for a confrontation? He knew that these protests have turned violent, he knows that there are people who do not make the best choices. He knew that people were going to call him out at best and attack him at worse. He was not defending himself because he out himself into a situation that he hoped to be in. Like I said before on here. he was looking for a fight. he wwould not have left without a body. He and others can say he was defending himself. But the fact is he he wanted to shoot someone.

You have the right to freedom of speech and protest. You, in theory, have the right to bear a firearm, though the arguments about it have shifted and changed throughout time. But if you bring a gun to a counter-protest, and brandish it... I mean, the implied threat is there towards people who express their freedom of speech in a way you disagree with - it’s an unpleasant aspect of mingling the amendments with the hard core reading of the 2nd that most people exercise enough intelligence and responsibility to avoid.

This is basically vigilanteism in the real world and why it’s fundamentally a bad thing - someone without the training or charge to enforce law and order acting on an all-too-human and all-too-likely-inappropriate idea of right and wrong and acting in a lethal fashion. He’s not a soldier, he’s not a cop, he’s a civilian with other civilians’ blood on his hands.

He wasn’t defending his hearth and home, and he wasn’t accosted while going about his everyday business. He chose to enter a volatile situation with two sides provoking each other while armed. The difference between him and someone who came into the situation and improvised a weapon from a rock or a skateboard is that he didn’t have to improvise, because he already had a weapon and was brandishing it.

Legally speaking, this may come down to something like the manner in which he was holding his weapon when the inciting incident began, but he is in the wrong regardless.

[Powerboy]

It sure seems like what your calling "cancel culture" is something that has already existed for a long time that is simply "the consequences of ones own actions". JK Rowling hasn't been "cancelled" (which, I'm pretty sure she still has millions of dollars and hasn't lost a job over her statements...) because everyone made some coordinated effort to besmirch her now, she just kept making statements/actions that called into question her views which turned out are bigoted. Turns out people (rightly) don't like that.

Speaking to a female friend of mine.

Me: Did you hear about the horrible sexist remark Steve Martin tweeted after Carrie Fisher died?

Her: No! What did he say?

Me: He said that, when he met her, he thought she was the most beautiful creature he ever saw. He soon discovered she was intelligent and compassionate.

Pause.

Her: So, cut to the chase. What sexist remark did he make?

Me: That was it. He was honest and admitted the first thing he noticed was her looks like he was a guy or something instead of BSing and pretending he didn't notice that first.

Her: Oh J**** C*****. I'm all for equality but we have turned into a nation of little anal crybabies desperate to be offended and have something to complain about.

Well, I looked up a history of what J.K. Rowling said and I'm thinking the same thing. Seriously? She objected to the term "people who menstruate" instead of just saying women or young women apparently because not all women menstruate meaning trans women. But that is WRONG. Trans women can menstruate.

Anyway, as a bi male who identified in his youth as gay all the way, I hate it when anyone implies that gay men are not really men. There was some guy who once posted an idea that you could have a man on Paradise Island and not have the island be destroyed by the curse because it turned out he was gay. The first response, which ruled the thread, was from a guy who said that he is 100% hetero to the best of his knowledge but even he found that disgusting because what the OP was really implying is that gay men don't 100% count as men.

But, even at that, I don't expect every conversation to say "Heterosexual and Homosexual". You can talk about "heterosexuality" as the overwhelming norm. You don't have to say "hetero" every time. With homosexuality, it's more prevalent than people think but you can say "gay" in acknowledgement that you're talking about something less common.

Likewise, in an every day conversation, I don't say "cis women". I just say "women" because "cis women" are the overwhelming majority.

It seems Rowling had a good record of defending trans people but she just got frustrated with some overly politically correct language and said one thing. Then she got attacked. Then she defended what she said including defending trans people. Then she got attacked for defending what she said instead of playing the game and begging for forgiveness for daring to offend some hyper sensitivity crowd that may or may not have even been trans people but just people who troll the waters of the Internet like sharks looking some wording that isn't in vogue and that they can take offense at, declare themselves to have the moral high ground and feel superior. Then she defended herself again and got accused of being that person who says "I have a black friend" because she defended her record.

And now, she's branded a transphobe over one factual statement even though that one fact is not the whole picture admittedly. She could have explained her view, which she did. But that being the end of it doesn't put anyone else into the "I'm in the clique and you're not. I'm now the good person and you're not and using you is a lever to push me higher in the correct side game".

I pretty much took it that Rowling is a bigot against trans people until I finally got around to reading what she actually said.

[Mister Mets]

Joe Biden has issued a statement regarding the violence and division, also calling on Trump to do the same.

The deadly violence we saw overnight in Portland is unacceptable. Shooting in the streets of a great American city is unacceptable. I condemn this violence unequivocally. I condemn violence of every kind by any one, whether on the left or the right. And I challenge Donald Trump to do the same. It does not matter if you find the political views of your opponents abhorrent, any loss of life is a tragedy. Today there is another family grieving in America, and Jill and I offer our deepest condolences.

We must not become a country at war with ourselves. A country that accepts the killing of fellow Americans who do not agree with you. A country that vows vengeance toward one another. But that is the America that President Trump wants us to be, the America he believes we are.

As a country, we must condemn the incitement of hate and resentment that led to this deadly clash. It is not a peaceful protest when you go out spoiling for a fight. What does President Trump think will happen when he continues to insist on fanning the flames of hate and division in our society and using the politics of fear to whip up his supporters? He is recklessly encouraging violence. He may believe tweeting about law and order makes him strong – but his failure to call on his supporters to stop seeking conflict shows just how weak he is. He may think that war in our streets is good for his reelection chances, but that is not presidential leadership–or even basic human compassion.

The job of a President is to lower the temperature. To bring people who disagree with one another together. To make life better for all Americans, not just those who agree with us, support us, or vote for us.

Donald Trump has been president for almost four years. The temperature in the country is higher, tensions run stronger, divisions run deeper. And all of us are less safe because Donald Trump can’t do the job of the American president.

This was well-put.

It's interesting how well Joe Biden fits the moment. He has the credibility to call on the police to do better, while it's also clear that he's not in favor of the criminals. There was a description of how he could be a healer in chief, due to the empathy that comes with overcoming major tragedies (burying a wife and two children) which is what the country is going to need going forward after the deaths from COVID and the trauma from the losses, illnesses and the shutdowns.

[Powerboy]

You have the right to freedom of speech and protest. You, in theory, have the right to bear a firearm, though the arguments about it have shifted and changed throughout time. But if you bring a gun to a counter-protest, and brandish it... I mean, the implied threat is there towards people who express their freedom of speech in a way you disagree with - it’s an unpleasant aspect of mingling the amendments with the hard core reading of the 2nd that most people exercise enough intelligence and responsibility to avoid.

This is basically vigilanteism in the real world and why it’s fundamentally a bad thing - someone without the training or charge to enforce law and order acting on an all-too-human and all-too-likely-inappropriate idea of right and wrong and acting in a lethal fashion. He’s not a soldier, he’s not a cop, he’s a civilian with other civilians’ blood on his hands.

He wasn’t defending his hearth and home, and he wasn’t accosted while going about his everyday business. He chose to enter a volatile situation with two sides provoking each other while armed. The difference between him and someone who came into the situation and improvised a weapon from a rock or a skateboard is that he didn’t have to improvise, because he already had a weapon and was brandishing it.

Legally speaking, this may come down to something like the manner in which he was holding his weapon when the inciting incident began, but he is in the wrong regardless.

He seems to have had similar violations before. His record makes it very clear that he went there hoping fort a chance to kill somebody.

The other question, of course, is the cops hearing gunshots and then letting a guy with an assault rifle walk right by them. Like anybody really believes he could have done that were he black. He probably would have been grabbed and hauled away or shot dead before he had a chance to do anything were he black.

[babyblob]

There's arguments against the idea of a Congressperson with, let's say, a two term limit.

If you know you won't have to sustain an entire career, why not just completely sell out to the money in politics in an attempt to make as much as you can during those two terms?

Wouldnt the lobbyists do the same to a life? And isnt a lifer more willing to go along with special interests? yes a two termer could get a few bucks for a limited amount of time. But if lobby groups like the NRA or Big Pharm get their hooks into a lifer like has happened couldnt hey just use they money and influence to get the person reelected time and time again because they have bought the vote? And wouldnt the lifer be more willing to go along with it because they have a steady cash flow?

[Mister Mets]

Wouldnt the lobbyists do the same to a life? And isnt a lifer more willing to go along with special interests? yes a two termer could get a few bucks for a limited amount of time. But if lobby groups like the NRA or Big Pharm get their hooks into a lifer like has happened couldnt hey just use they money and influence to get the person reelected time and time again because they have bought the vote? And wouldnt the lifer be more willing to go along with it because they have a steady cash flow?

Lobbyists don't have term limits, so under this scenario, the lobbyists will be the ones with institutional knowledge. Even if the new stream of politicians is well-meaning, they're also going to be more naive. There's also the potential problem of regulatory capture, as one of the career choices for out of work politicians is lobbying.

[Kirby101]

Public financed election, money out of politics is the answer.

[numberthirty]

Wouldnt the lobbyists do the same to a life? And isnt a lifer more willing to go along with special interests? yes a two termer could get a few bucks for a limited amount of time. But if lobby groups like the NRA or Big Pharm get their hooks into a lifer like has happened couldnt hey just use they money and influence to get the person reelected time and time again because they have bought the vote? And wouldnt the lifer be more willing to go along with it because they have a steady cash flow?

Look...

I think that all of the "Business As Usual..." Republicans and Democrats that I could name are actual proof that lobbyist do have lifers in their pocket. Never mind that playing ball gets them all kind of potential lobbying/lobbying adjacent work after they leave politics.

It's just that said reality doesn't really mean that that ecosystem wouldn't just go on ahead and rebuild itself if you imposed term limits.

Too many people that are willing to put politics as a vocation ahead of legitimate public service.

[numberthirty]

Public financed election, money out of politics is the answer.

On paper?

Sure

In practice?

Who is going to get that done? All of the Republicans and Democrats who can make a career out of politics with the system working as it is?

[Tami]

Public financed election, money out of politics is the answer.

For the most part, the public does finance elections. However, when you consider how many candidates might be running at the same time, from local races all the way up to presidential, all looking for donations, eventually the Public is going to say enough is enough. The average person can't afford to donate that much money.

I'm not justifying the big money donors, I agree that they can be big trouble. It's more like, yes place tighter limits on donations, but more importantly, make the election season much shorter.

A shorter election season means less money is needed to be spent on campaigns. The less money a candidate needs, the fewer donations they will need, the less likely they will need money from big donors.

There are other ways to save money, cut expenses, and still run a god campaign, assuming the needed changes are made to make it required on both sides.