▲ 417 ▼ North Dakotans Approve Age Limit for Members of Congress (www.nytimes.com) submitted 2 years ago by gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@lemmy.world 70 comments fedilink hide all child comments Surprisingly based from ND, to be completely honest
[+] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago This. I have no idea why it's a popular trope to just talk about "term limits" as if it would actually solve anything. For some reason, actual expertise at governing is frowned on, but I doubt the very people arguing for term limits would ever argue for term limits for a plumber, a dentist, a mechanic, a roofer...anyone up for having their teeth drilled by an "outsider"? I know I'm not. permalink fedilink source parent [–] eodur@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, I have strongly mixed feelings on this. Perhaps we should intact term limits, but probably not as short as usually proposed and probably paired with something to limit outside influence. The common claim I hear is that with a more junior Congress they would be even more reliant on the parts of "government" that stick around longer, like lobbyists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Yes, it's a common talking point of the far right and when someone brings it up as some kind of magical solution to something it's a red flag. It might be that they are arguing in good faith for it, but haven't really thought it through... The problem is all the legalized bribery. Having short-term whores in Congress won't change that at all, it would only give the illusion of change for the better. It would more likely make things far, far worse. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago It requires years of procedural understanding because there's no term limits. There isn't benefit to that excessive procedure apart from making junior representatives lives more difficult. Congress can make their own rules, and they make them benefit those who have been there for 30 years. A term limited Congress can make rules that work better for them. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago This. I have no idea why it's a popular trope to just talk about "term limits" as if it would actually solve anything. For some reason, actual expertise at governing is frowned on, but I doubt the very people arguing for term limits would ever argue for term limits for a plumber, a dentist, a mechanic, a roofer...anyone up for having their teeth drilled by an "outsider"? I know I'm not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] eodur@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Yeah, I have strongly mixed feelings on this. Perhaps we should intact term limits, but probably not as short as usually proposed and probably paired with something to limit outside influence. The common claim I hear is that with a more junior Congress they would be even more reliant on the parts of "government" that stick around longer, like lobbyists. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Yes, it's a common talking point of the far right and when someone brings it up as some kind of magical solution to something it's a red flag. It might be that they are arguing in good faith for it, but haven't really thought it through... The problem is all the legalized bribery. Having short-term whores in Congress won't change that at all, it would only give the illusion of change for the better. It would more likely make things far, far worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Yes, it's a common talking point of the far right and when someone brings it up as some kind of magical solution to something it's a red flag. It might be that they are arguing in good faith for it, but haven't really thought it through... The problem is all the legalized bribery. Having short-term whores in Congress won't change that at all, it would only give the illusion of change for the better. It would more likely make things far, far worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago Yes, it's a common talking point of the far right and when someone brings it up as some kind of magical solution to something it's a red flag. It might be that they are arguing in good faith for it, but haven't really thought it through... The problem is all the legalized bribery. Having short-term whores in Congress won't change that at all, it would only give the illusion of change for the better. It would more likely make things far, far worse. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago It requires years of procedural understanding because there's no term limits. There isn't benefit to that excessive procedure apart from making junior representatives lives more difficult. Congress can make their own rules, and they make them benefit those who have been there for 30 years. A term limited Congress can make rules that work better for them. permalink fedilink source parent