QuoteSen. Cruz and Rep. DeSantis Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Impose Term Limits On Members of Congress
AMENDMENT WOULD LIMIT SENATORS TO TWO TERMS, REPRESENTATIVES TO THREE TERMS
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) today proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress. The amendment would limit U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.
"D.C. is broken," said Sen. Cruz. "The American people resoundingly agreed on Election Day, and President-elect Donald Trump has committed to putting government back to work for the American people. It is well past time to put an end to the cronyism and deceit that has transformed Washington into a graveyard of good intentions."
Cruz continued: "The time is now for Congress, with the overwhelming support of the American people, to submit this constitutional amendment to the states for speedy ratification. With control of a decisive majority of the states, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, we have a responsibility to answer the voters' call-to-action. We must deliver."
"Term limits are the first step towards reforming Capitol Hill," said Rep. DeSantis. "Eliminating the political elite and infusing Washington with new blood will restore the citizen legislature that our Founding Fathers envisioned. The American people have called for increased accountability and we must deliver. Senator Cruz has been instrumental in efforts to hold Congress accountable, and I look forward to working with him to implement term limits."
"President Trump, Speaker Ryan and huge majorities of the American people are demanding term limits," said U.S. Term Limits President Philip Blumel. "Congress must listen and pass the Cruz-DeSantis amendment immediately.
The enduring concept of a citizen legislature, of limiting unruly influence and abuse of power, and of promoting integrity and unclouded judgment in Washington through congressional term limits is a priority strongly supported by the American people. According to an October Rasmussen survey, 74 percent of Americans support establishing term limits for all members of Congress, while only 13 percent oppose term limits.
In December, Sen. Cruz and Rep. DeSantis published an op-ed in the Washington Post announcing their intention to introduce a term limits amendment in the 115th Congress.
The amendment was cosponsored in the Senate by Sens. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and David Perdue (R-Ga.)
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2940
I have to admit I like this. Back when I was a supporter of the Red Team I was very excited about this as part of the 'Contract with America' during the Days of Newt.
Granted Texas will just produce people shittier than Cruz and Cornyn at least they would be new and exciting shitty people.
If they can somehow get this thing through Congress the States will probably quickly adopt it. Who knows.
If you want to drain the swamp I have a plunger. :)
how do you make up for the loss in experience re: various committees
Quote from: LaCroix on January 04, 2017, 02:06:16 PM
how do you make up for the loss in experience re: various committees
I would prefer 12 years for both houses, which is how it was proposed back in 1994 I think. That is plenty of time to learn the ropes and be effective.
How does the re-election of almost every incumbent show that the people want term limits?
Quote from: sbr on January 04, 2017, 03:12:27 PM
How does the re-election of almost every incumbent show that the people want term limits?
They voted for Trump instead of him? No idea what Cruz is saying there.
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2017, 01:32:43 PM
If they can somehow get this thing through Congress the States will probably quickly adopt it. Who knows.
So the US has just elected a collection of know-nothings with little experience in government to run the country, and you are - rightly IMO - expecting them to make a clusterfuck of a situation significantly worse.
Thus you applaud an initiative to institutionalize the election of know-nothing neophytes and prevent the development of institutional expertise in government?
Seems pretty foolish, IMO.
Most of them remain know-nothing neophytes even after spending many terms in office. :P
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 04, 2017, 03:26:36 PM
Most of them remain know-nothing neophytes even after spending many terms in office. :P
I think that is actually incorrect, and that the firm and widespread desire to believe that is one of the main things undermining the American republic.
Quote from: sbr on January 04, 2017, 03:12:27 PM
How does the re-election of almost every incumbent show that the people want term limits?
Much in the same way that re-election of almost every incumbent shows that people want change.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2017, 03:36:54 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 04, 2017, 03:26:36 PM
Most of them remain know-nothing neophytes even after spending many terms in office. :P
I think that is actually incorrect, and that the firm and widespread desire to believe that is one of the main things undermining the American republic.
Pelosi?
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2017, 03:39:23 PM
Pelosi?
You think Pelosi is a know-nothing neophyte?
You're an incredible optimist, Jake. I wish I had that.
Don't senators spend like 40% of their time campaigning? Term limits might help that. Especially their last term so that they can concentrate on Senatoring (and or one last big corruption grab)
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 04, 2017, 04:16:22 PM
You're an incredible optimist, Jake. I wish I had that.
There is no viable alternative. Pessimism is self-fulfilling. You go around believing the worst to protect yourself from disappointment in worst-case scenarios or out of intellectual laziness; but because you believe it and act like it's true it'll become true.
Pelosi et. al. may be objectionable in a number of ways - venal, short sighted, self interested, politically disagreeable, incompetent even - but she is not a neophyte who doesn't know how things work. Telling yourself that experienced politicians are neophytes will eventually get you a bunch of politicians who are equally venal, short sighted, self interested, politically disagreeable and incompetent in addition to being inexperienced, thus making a bad situation worse. This bill is a clear example of this dynamic at work.
Jaded pessimism is not realism. The reason there are good things and institutions in the US is because optimists and idealists and pragmatists have worked hard for them. People repeating to themselves and others that "things are shit" facilitate things becoming even more shit.
I don't think garbon was being 100% serious re pelosi
Quote from: HVC on January 04, 2017, 04:19:57 PM
Don't senators spend like 40% of their time campaigning? Term limits might help that. Especially their last term so that they can concentrate on Senatoring (and or one last big corruption grab)
That is part of it.
Also I would prefer the system work like a Corsus Honorem type deal. Career politicians should be working up from local office, getting familiarized with how politics work and paying their dues. Reaching the Congress or Senate should be a culmination. Then they should either move up to the next level, to Senate if they were in Congress or Governor (or some other statewide office) or President or whatever. If they were undistinguished in the Congress then it might be time for them to move on to something else. For non-career people a few terms in the Congress should likewise come as a culmination of whatever they did to be considered a good candidate for national office. I think it will bring a greater diversity of experience and have them be better tied to their districts. I do not think ultimately the effect would be neophytes pouring in. That is created by an atmosphere of populist anti-establishment politics which will happen one way or another.
Likewise a big problem is sitting members have access to certain levers and privileges that help keep them in office. Having more open seats would help level the playing field a bit and give Congressional and Senatorial elections a more dynamic quality.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 04, 2017, 04:46:23 PM
I don't think garbon was being 100% serious re pelosi
:lol: :hug:
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2017, 03:36:54 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 04, 2017, 03:26:36 PM
Most of them remain know-nothing neophytes even after spending many terms in office. :P
I think that is actually incorrect, and that the firm and widespread desire to believe that is one of the main things undermining the American republic.
Bingo. People like to think that people who disagree with them are not only wrong, but stupid.
I haven't seen any of the evidence that supports the argument that Senators and Congressmen get better at their jobs over time. Seems to me like a begged question.
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2017, 03:36:54 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 04, 2017, 03:26:36 PM
Most of them remain know-nothing neophytes even after spending many terms in office. :P
I think that is actually incorrect, and that the firm and widespread desire to believe that is one of the main things undermining the American republic.
Agreed.
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2017, 06:17:12 PM
I haven't seen any of the evidence that supports the argument that Senators and Congressmen get better at their jobs over time. Seems to me like a begged question.
I guess it depends on how we define "get better at their jobs over time".
For my part I'm not asserting that they do get better at their jobs over time, merely that they get more experience. Absent evidence to the contrary in any given case I'd assume that experience in any given role is a net positive. It's certainly possible that in the case of senators and congressmen it's not, but I default to thinking that it is since that holds true in most areas I'm familiar with... and because I'm a relentless optimist :)
Yes, who needs people like John McCain in the Senate?
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2017, 04:27:26 PM
Jaded pessimism is not realism. The reason there are good things and institutions in the US is because optimists and idealists and pragmatists have worked hard for them. People repeating to themselves and others that "things are shit" facilitate things becoming even more shit.
Very well said. Mindless cynicism is poison to democracy, and surely played a significant role in having us get to where we are today.
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2017, 06:17:12 PM
I haven't seen any of the evidence that supports the argument that Senators and Congressmen get better at their jobs over time. Seems to me like a begged question.
This post is something of an anomaly. None else has said, "Senators or Congressmen get batter at their jobs over time" but you Grumbler. So the Begged question is the one you made up.
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2017, 07:25:24 PM
Yes, who needs people like John McCain in the Senate?
Since 1927 that seat has been occupied by three people. Amazing.
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2017, 04:51:35 PM
Likewise a big problem is sitting members have access to certain levers and privileges that help keep them in office. Having more open seats would help level the playing field a bit and give Congressional and Senatorial elections a more dynamic quality.
Term limits increase the total number of Congressmen walking the earth over time. The more ex-Congressmen there are, the more lobbyists there will be.
I'm not sure exactly what the mathematical growth rate formula is for that, but I'm pretty sure it's something like
This = Cannot Be Good
Quote from: Jacob on January 04, 2017, 07:17:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on January 04, 2017, 06:17:12 PM
I haven't seen any of the evidence that supports the argument that Senators and Congressmen get better at their jobs over time. Seems to me like a begged question.
I guess it depends on how we define "get better at their jobs over time".
For my part I'm not asserting that they do get better at their jobs over time, merely that they get more experience. Absent evidence to the contrary in any given case I'd assume that experience in any given role is a net positive. It's certainly possible that in the case of senators and congressmen it's not, but I default to thinking that it is since that holds true in most areas I'm familiar with... and because I'm a relentless optimist :)
I think they certainly get "better" at their jobs, but a big part of what they are getting better at isn't what is actually serving their constituency, it is getting better at securing their position and getting re-elected. Forever. And ever. And ever.
The problem is that there is a lack of alignment in what they are doing and what they ought to be doing. This isn't their fault per se, but it is a failure in the system.
I don't know that term limits are the answer - to me that is kind of a band-aid solution that "solves" the problem in a rather blunt manner, and I suspect may not even solve the problem at the end of the day.
I actually do support term limits for Congress. I don't know that three and two are the right numbers, but I know that "forever" is almost certainly the wrong number.
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2017, 08:12:12 PM
I think they certainly get "better" at their jobs, but a big part of what they are getting better at isn't what is actually serving their constituency, it is getting better at securing their position and getting re-elected. Forever. And ever. And ever.
The problem is that there is a lack of alignment in what they are doing and what they ought to be doing. This isn't their fault per se, but it is a failure in the system.
I don't know that term limits are the answer - to me that is kind of a band-aid solution that "solves" the problem in a rather blunt manner, and I suspect may not even solve the problem at the end of the day.
I actually do support term limits for Congress. I don't know that three and two are the right numbers, but I know that "forever" is almost certainly the wrong number.
Agree, and that was kinda my point. Opponents of term limits argue that they are "not asserting that they do get better at their jobs over time," just that "they get more experience [and]... assume that experience in any given role is a net positive." Which is to say that they don't want to admit that they are arguing that Congressmen get better in their jobs over time, but they are in fact arguing exactly that as the sole basis for opposing term limits.
I am with you in believing that term limits may not be the solution, but that they are a step towards a solution. The proper limits might not be three terms and two terms, but, as you say, it is likelier three and two than "unlimited."
Part of the reason i believe this is that it will make it much less worthwhile to spend all the money currently being spent on campaigns, because the people buying the congressmen are not buying them for such a long period of time. Paying millions to by a congressman who is going to be out of office in six years is a much less attractive prospect than buying one who, once bought, will be in office until he dies (or is close to death).
Another part of my reason is that it means that Congressmen will have to think about life after office. As Seedy points out, today there is only a limited supply of ex-congressmen, so they can command pretty high prices as consultants and figureheads - a disincentive to rock any boats when in office. If there are so many that you cannot swing a cat without hitting a former congressmen, they will revert to being mere mortals, and won't be as incentivised to sacrifice their constituents' interests to serve their own. They may even have to move out of Washington! :lol:
Term limits work for the presidency. They can work for the House, Senate, and Supreme Court, too.
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2017, 07:49:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2017, 07:25:24 PM
Yes, who needs people like John McCain in the Senate?
Since 1927 that seat has been occupied by three people. Amazing.
Is that even legal?
Now may not be the best time to sing the praises of presidential term limits.
Quote from: The Brain on January 04, 2017, 08:39:50 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 04, 2017, 07:49:03 PM
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2017, 07:25:24 PM
Yes, who needs people like John McCain in the Senate?
Since 1927 that seat has been occupied by three people. Amazing.
Is that even legal?
Not at the same time :P
Two of them are dead anyway, so as long as McCain can squeeze in, it should be all good.
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2017, 08:40:35 PM
Now may not be the best time to sing the praises of presidential term limits.
You Trump-lovers. :lol:
I think McCain is actually a damn good Senator. If we have to have people in there for life, you can do a lot worse than John McCain.
You may not like his politics, but you can't deny that he actually does what he thinks is right...mostly.
It is too bad he ever ran for President (and lost).
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2017, 08:59:48 PM
I think McCain is actually a damn good Senator. If we have to have people in there for life, you can do a lot worse than John McCain.
You may not like his politics, but you can't deny that he actually does what he thinks is right...mostly.
He's definitely one of the last of his kind.
QuoteIt is too bad he ever ran for President (and lost).
In 2000 he was a great candidate: vibrant, animated, loved by the mainstream media. In 2008, he was bitter, co-opted, and seemed older than he compared to his opponent.
Just like 1988 Bob Dole and 1996 Bod Dole.
Remember when we thought having Palin as VP was a thought too scary to contemplate? Such innocent times. :lol:
No shit.
I don't know. She still seems pretty scary. At least back then she was a State Governor.
there's a big advantage to having decades-worth experience as a judge. there's just more familiarity with the system and a history of what's occurred that can provide a really nice resource at random times. I'm assuming in congress the 30+ year vets, etc. would have a similar enough advantage and could use their experience to provide some guidance to their less experienced peers.
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2017, 08:40:35 PM
Now may not be the best time to sing the praises of presidential term limits.
:D
One of the reasons I'm not so optimistic about politicians is the mere nature of the thing. Just going into that field as a life goal tells everyone things about a person that aren't exactly good. Everyone has the impulse to try to control others. For the purpose of civilization, we resist most of that.
But politics is something beyond the inability to control it. These are the people who weren't satisfied running the local nazi homeowner's association or bullying the school board. They needed to go big.
Maybe we get the occasional Jimmy Stewart in office, but mostly not.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 05, 2017, 12:09:58 AM
One of the reasons I'm not so optimistic about politicians is the mere nature of the thing. Just going into that field as a life goal tells everyone things about a person that aren't exactly good. Everyone has the impulse to try to control others. For the purpose of civilization, we resist most of that.
But politics is something beyond the inability to control it. These are the people who weren't satisfied running the local nazi homeowner's association or bullying the school board. They needed to go big.
Maybe we get the occasional Jimmy Stewart in office, but mostly not.
I disagree; people enter and succeed in politics because, regardless of their bent, they sincerely believe they are attempting to do good. Yeah, they need egos, and they have them, but the true sociopaths and Bond villains are much more successful in other industries.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 05, 2017, 12:09:58 AM
One of the reasons I'm not so optimistic about politicians is the mere nature of the thing. Just going into that field as a life goal tells everyone things about a person that aren't exactly good. Everyone has the impulse to try to control others. For the purpose of civilization, we resist most of that.
But politics is something beyond the inability to control it. These are the people who weren't satisfied running the local nazi homeowner's association or bullying the school board. They needed to go big.
Maybe we get the occasional Jimmy Stewart in office, but mostly not.
We have plenty of Jimmy Stewarts, and it doesn't improve things.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on January 05, 2017, 12:09:58 AM
One of the reasons I'm not so optimistic about politicians is the mere nature of the thing. Just going into that field as a life goal tells everyone things about a person that aren't exactly good. Everyone has the impulse to try to control others. For the purpose of civilization, we resist most of that.
But politics is something beyond the inability to control it. These are the people who weren't satisfied running the local nazi homeowner's association or bullying the school board. They needed to go big.
Maybe we get the occasional Jimmy Stewart in office, but mostly not.
This is perhaps the best indication of how much things have changed within US political discourse.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 12:36:17 AM
This is perhaps the best indication of how much things have changed within US political discourse.
Yeah. If that's the general view held by many or even most reasonable people then it's hard to see a path to actually improving things; at least as long as that persists.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 01:00:26 AM
Are those supposed to be capitalized?
Senators and representatives are both congressmen. It's a bicameral thingy.
Granted, representatives represent congressional districts, but they're still technically representatives.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2017, 01:05:10 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 01:00:26 AM
Are those supposed to be capitalized?
Senators and representatives are both congressmen. It's a bicameral thingy.
Granted, representatives represent congressional districts, but they're still technically representatives.
I was vaguely aware of this distinction but since grumbler had "Senators and Congressmen" in the post I replied to, I assumed it was the correct usage.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 01:35:31 AM
I was vaguely aware of this distinction but since grumbler had "Senators and Congressmen" in the post I replied to, I assumed it was the correct usage.
I know. I am disappointed in him, too.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 04, 2017, 07:53:09 PM
Term limits increase the total number of Congressmen walking the earth over time. The more ex-Congressmen there are, the more lobbyists there will be.
I don't think so; there will always be as many lobbyists as corporations/pacs/etc are willing to pay for. More ex-Congress members just means those jobs will be harder to get.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 01:35:31 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2017, 01:05:10 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 01:00:26 AM
Are those supposed to be capitalized?
Senators and representatives are both congressmen. It's a bicameral thingy.
Granted, representatives represent congressional districts, but they're still technically representatives.
I was vaguely aware of this distinction but since grumbler had "Senators and Congressmen" in the post I replied to, I assumed it was the correct usage.
Senators and congressmen is the correct terminology. Senators and representatives is equally correct, though much more rare. They shouldn't be capitalized except when part of a proper name (I erroneously capitalize those words all the time).
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 05, 2017, 01:41:41 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 04, 2017, 07:53:09 PM
Term limits increase the total number of Congressmen walking the earth over time. The more ex-Congressmen there are, the more lobbyists there will be.
I don't think so; there will always be as many lobbyists as corporations/pacs/etc are willing to pay for. More ex-Congress members just means those jobs will be harder to get.
And those jobs will pay a lot less, since there will be more ex-congressmen to fill them.
There are plenty of people doing them now who have never been in Congress. I would imagine the pay rates are tied in with other corporate jobs and won't be drastically affected by the number of ex-congressmen seeking them.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 01:02:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 12:36:17 AM
This is perhaps the best indication of how much things have changed within US political discourse.
Yeah. If that's the general view held by many or even most reasonable people then it's hard to see a path to actually improving things; at least as long as that persists.
Agreed. :(
I guess this attitude has a lot to do with anti-government propaganda the right wing has embarked on ever since Reagan. While corruption obviously is there, the effects of it on effective governance is what has been blown all out of proportion. What really destroys effective governance is when the people who buy into this schpiel hook and sinker and elect suicide bombers into the government.
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2017, 07:21:01 AM
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 05, 2017, 01:41:41 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 04, 2017, 07:53:09 PM
Term limits increase the total number of Congressmen walking the earth over time. The more ex-Congressmen there are, the more lobbyists there will be.
I don't think so; there will always be as many lobbyists as corporations/pacs/etc are willing to pay for. More ex-Congress members just means those jobs will be harder to get.
And those jobs will pay a lot less, since there will be more ex-congressmen to fill them.
:lol: Oh, you were serious. Let me laugh a little harder. :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Cynics are some of the most naive people in the world. In Missouri, we have term limits, and the average pay of a lobbyist is well over 2 times that of a Senator.
Missouri. 'Nuff said.
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2017, 07:50:43 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 01:02:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 12:36:17 AM
This is perhaps the best indication of how much things have changed within US political discourse.
Yeah. If that's the general view held by many or even most reasonable people then it's hard to see a path to actually improving things; at least as long as that persists.
Agreed. :(
I guess this attitude has a lot to do with anti-government propaganda the right wing has embarked on ever since Reagan. While corruption obviously is there, the effects of it on effective governance is what has been blown all out of proportion. What really destroys effective governance is when the people who buy into this schpiel hook and sinker and elect suicide bombers into the government.
Said propaganda did a terrible job in the 90s then.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.gallup.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2Foqaboct59um-_pkui1nkhw.png&hash=31f1d6c2a05cbad9e819202bb75e1eeade65bf68)
Quote from: garbon on January 05, 2017, 08:22:58 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2017, 07:50:43 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 01:02:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 12:36:17 AM
This is perhaps the best indication of how much things have changed within US political discourse.
Yeah. If that's the general view held by many or even most reasonable people then it's hard to see a path to actually improving things; at least as long as that persists.
Agreed. :(
I guess this attitude has a lot to do with anti-government propaganda the right wing has embarked on ever since Reagan. While corruption obviously is there, the effects of it on effective governance is what has been blown all out of proportion. What really destroys effective governance is when the people who buy into this schpiel hook and sinker and elect suicide bombers into the government.
Said propaganda did a terrible job in the 90s then.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.gallup.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2Foqaboct59um-_pkui1nkhw.png&hash=31f1d6c2a05cbad9e819202bb75e1eeade65bf68)
Job approval rates does not really capture what we are talking about. The comment by MiM was that everyone who enters politics is suspect. You should find a graph that tracks where politicians rank in public esteem through time compared to other roles in society. My sense of it is that the public opinion of politicians in general has been declining over the decades.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 12:36:17 AM
This is perhaps the best indication of how much things have changed within US political discourse.
Not really. This is a pretty standard and old time view.
Quote from: garbon on January 05, 2017, 08:22:58 AM
Said propaganda did a terrible job in the 90s then.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.gallup.com%2Forigin%2Fgallupinc%2FGallupSpaces%2FProduction%2FCms%2FPOLL%2Foqaboct59um-_pkui1nkhw.png&hash=31f1d6c2a05cbad9e819202bb75e1eeade65bf68)
So bizarre. The 'party of no' Congress was the most unpopular in this chart yet somehow the voters just kept rewarding them.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 09:41:36 AM
Job approval rates does not really capture what we are talking about. The comment by MiM was that everyone who enters politics is suspect. You should find a graph that tracks where politicians rank in public esteem through time compared to other roles in society. My sense of it is that the public opinion of politicians in general has been declining over the decades.
I bet it ebbs and flows. Politicians are usually only held in high regard when we are in some kind of crisis and need them, sort of like Lawyers and Police Officers.
yeah, this argument -- growing distrust re politicians among americans -- seems like another instance of feelings being more important than facts
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2017, 07:50:43 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 01:02:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 12:36:17 AM
This is perhaps the best indication of how much things have changed within US political discourse.
Yeah. If that's the general view held by many or even most reasonable people then it's hard to see a path to actually improving things; at least as long as that persists.
Agreed. :(
I guess this attitude has a lot to do with anti-government propaganda the right wing has embarked on ever since Reagan. While corruption obviously is there, the effects of it on effective governance is what has been blown all out of proportion. What really destroys effective governance is when the people who buy into this schpiel hook and sinker and elect suicide bombers into the government.
I don't think that the right wing anti-government propaganda has been any more effective than the left-wing pro-government propaganda, but I think that, as information sources have become more pervasive and more is known about what the government is actually doing with tax dollars, people are getting more exposed to the inefficiencies and idiocies that come with bureaucracies unbridled by any external constraints.
I don't think government is actually becoming that much less efficient; i am sure that there were, in the past, military and naval procurement as incompetent and infuriating (had they been known) as, say, the F-35 or the Zumwalt class, but people just didn't hear about it. Now, people hear about it, and they believe that the current government is uniquely venal and incompetent. That's why they vote in the know-nothings who vow to just collapse government and throw the good out with the bad.
It has nothing to do with the various tribal propaganda programs.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2017, 10:18:50 AM
I bet it ebbs and flows. Politicians are usually only held in high regard when we are in some kind of crisis and need them, sort of like Lawyers and Police Officers.
Sure. the graph shows that. Post-9/11, people think Congress is doing a good job because it is seen as doing something. that certainly wasn't a brilliant couple of congresses, but the times shaped the perception.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 05, 2017, 10:22:07 AM
yeah, this argument -- growing distrust re politicians among americans -- seems like another instance of feelings being more important than facts
Poll after poll has consistently shown that, while voters have low opinions of Congress, they have relatively decent opinions about their own congressmen.
This whole "Congress sucks except for my representatives" attitude isn't helping matters. Political polarization FTL
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2017, 11:07:49 AM
Poll after poll has consistently shown that, while voters have low opinions of Congress, they have relatively decent opinions about their own congressmen.
This whole "Congress sucks except for my representatives" attitude isn't helping matters. Political polarization FTL
I don't. Even if my city is so sliced up, every time I move to a new neighborhood I get a new shitty Congressman. It is hard to really feel any attachment to them.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2017, 11:07:49 AM
Poll after poll has consistently shown that, while voters have low opinions of Congress, they have relatively decent opinions about their own congressmen.
This whole "Congress sucks except for my representatives" attitude isn't helping matters. Political polarization FTL
This isn't new, though.
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2017, 12:27:30 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 05, 2017, 11:07:49 AM
Poll after poll has consistently shown that, while voters have low opinions of Congress, they have relatively decent opinions about their own congressmen.
This whole "Congress sucks except for my representatives" attitude isn't helping matters. Political polarization FTL
This isn't new, though.
No, it is not new. And neither is lacroix's premise about "growing distrust" about politicians.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2017, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 12:36:17 AM
This is perhaps the best indication of how much things have changed within US political discourse.
Not really. This is a pretty standard and old time view.
Not sure if this is another one of your jokes.
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2017, 10:25:25 AM
Quote from: DGuller on January 05, 2017, 07:50:43 AM
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 01:02:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 12:36:17 AM
This is perhaps the best indication of how much things have changed within US political discourse.
Yeah. If that's the general view held by many or even most reasonable people then it's hard to see a path to actually improving things; at least as long as that persists.
Agreed. :(
I guess this attitude has a lot to do with anti-government propaganda the right wing has embarked on ever since Reagan. While corruption obviously is there, the effects of it on effective governance is what has been blown all out of proportion. What really destroys effective governance is when the people who buy into this schpiel hook and sinker and elect suicide bombers into the government.
I don't think that the right wing anti-government propaganda has been any more effective than the left-wing pro-government propaganda, but I think that, as information sources have become more pervasive and more is known about what the government is actually doing with tax dollars, people are getting more exposed to the inefficiencies and idiocies that come with bureaucracies unbridled by any external constraints.
I don't think government is actually becoming that much less efficient; i am sure that there were, in the past, military and naval procurement as incompetent and infuriating (had they been known) as, say, the F-35 or the Zumwalt class, but people just didn't hear about it. Now, people hear about it, and they believe that the current government is uniquely venal and incompetent. That's why they vote in the know-nothings who vow to just collapse government and throw the good out with the bad.
It has nothing to do with the various tribal propaganda programs.
We used to have newspapers that people actually read containing real news about these sorts of things. I am not sure why you think it is only in the age of fake news that people know about real government waste.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 06:53:29 PM
We used to have newspapers that people actually read containing real news about these sorts of things. I am not sure why you think it is only in the age of fake news that people know about real government waste.
I find it amusing that you old farts really think that your olde-timey newspapers dispensed even a tenth as much information on a daily basis as a single search engine does on the internet. Don't forget your reading glasses, gramps! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2017, 06:58:42 PM
I find it amusing that you old farts really think that your olde-timey newspapers dispensed even a tenth as much information on a daily basis as a single search engine does on the internet. Don't forget your reading glasses, gramps! :lol:
Dispensing information and being capable of dispensing information are different matters. That search engine's not gonna dispense much if all that's being entered is BOOBS XXX.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 06:50:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2017, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 12:36:17 AM
This is perhaps the best indication of how much things have changed within US political discourse.
Not really. This is a pretty standard and old time view.
Not sure if this is another one of your jokes.
How is that a joke?
No it is not. Hell I have read similar rants about Colonial fury at Robert Walpole's regime and what sort of people would be associated with it. We have had some spectacularly corrupt state governments over the centuries with all the cynicism that accompanied it. When Teddy Roosevelt decided to become a politician his friends were shocked because, by that point, respectable people in New York just did not get involved in politics. It was considered a dirty business for corrupt business men.
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2017, 07:29:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 06:50:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2017, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 12:36:17 AM
This is perhaps the best indication of how much things have changed within US political discourse.
Not really. This is a pretty standard and old time view.
Not sure if this is another one of your jokes.
How is that a joke?
No it is not. Hell I have read similar rants about Colonial fury at Robert Walpole's regime and what sort of people would be associated with it. We have had some spectacularly corrupt state governments over the centuries with all the cynicism that accompanied it. When Teddy Roosevelt decided to become a politician his friends were shocked because, by that point, respectable people in New York just did not get involved in politics. It was considered a dirty business for corrupt business men.
Sorry doesn't fit his narrative so he won't hear none of that. Americans today are the worst that have ever lived.
Quote from: grumbler on January 05, 2017, 06:58:42 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 06:53:29 PM
We used to have newspapers that people actually read containing real news about these sorts of things. I am not sure why you think it is only in the age of fake news that people know about real government waste.
I find it amusing that you old farts really think that your olde-timey newspapers dispensed even a tenth as much information on a daily basis as a single search engine does on the internet. Don't forget your reading glasses, gramps! :lol:
I find it amusing that you believe that most of what you are reading on the internet is factual. You used to be a critical thinker ;)
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2017, 07:29:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 06:50:46 PM
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2017, 10:15:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 12:36:17 AM
This is perhaps the best indication of how much things have changed within US political discourse.
Not really. This is a pretty standard and old time view.
Not sure if this is another one of your jokes.
How is that a joke?
No it is not. Hell I have read similar rants about Colonial fury at Robert Walpole's regime and what sort of people would be associated with it. We have had some spectacularly corrupt state governments over the centuries with all the cynicism that accompanied it. When Teddy Roosevelt decided to become a politician his friends were shocked because, by that point, respectable people in New York just did not get involved in politics. It was considered a dirty business for corrupt business men.
You are conflating the issue. Again, MiM's observation was that everyone who wishes to become a politician is suspect. Not that some politician are corrupt. But this is languish and the likes of Garbon hold sway here.
As opposed to your great story that one post by MIM is suddenly the zeitgeist?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 07:58:56 PM
You are conflating the issue. Again, MiM's observation was that everyone who wishes to become a politician is suspect. Not that some politician are corrupt. But this is languish and the likes of Garbon hold sway here.
I am saying that feeling that way, that everybody who wishes to become a politician is suspect, is a pretty traditional American viewpoint. But then it is a pretty ancient view point that anybody who actually wants to rule is the worst person to be allowed to.
Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 05, 2017, 07:26:01 PM
Dispensing information and being capable of dispensing information are different matters. That search engine's not gonna dispense much if all that's being entered is BOOBS XXX.
And the newspaper that sits there unread is not going to dispense any more information while the old farts like CC read their Hustlers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 07:57:31 PM
I find it amusing that you believe that most of what you are reading on the internet is factual. You used to be a critical thinker ;)
A complete strawman, combined with an ad hom! Go for a begged question, and you'll complete the Logical Fallacy Trifecta! :D
Quote from: garbon on January 05, 2017, 07:34:01 PM
Sorry doesn't fit his narrative so he won't hear none of that. Americans today are the worst that have ever lived.
You're such a sensitive flower sometimes.
Quote from: Jacob on January 05, 2017, 10:49:24 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 05, 2017, 07:34:01 PM
Sorry doesn't fit his narrative so he won't hear none of that. Americans today are the worst that have ever lived.
You're such a sensitive flower sometimes.
I just tire quickly of 'analysis' built on anecdotes.
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 03:35:10 AM
I just tire quickly of 'analysis' built on anecdotes.
So what does that leave us? Cranky snipping and abstract tut-tutting... anything else?
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2017, 02:04:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 03:35:10 AM
I just tire quickly of 'analysis' built on anecdotes.
So what does that leave us? Cranky snipping and abstract tut-tutting... anything else?
True, pretty good description of what you, CC and D4Gul did. ;)
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 02:10:59 PM
True, pretty good description of what you, CC and D4Gul did. ;)
Right, we've also got tiresome attempts at wit like you just demonstrated.
Just fuck already. Jesus.
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2017, 02:04:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 03:35:10 AM
I just tire quickly of 'analysis' built on anecdotes.
So what does that leave us? Cranky snipping and abstract tut-tutting... anything else?
I thought you were against "post-truth" ;)
Quote from: The Brain on January 06, 2017, 02:21:25 PM
Just fuck already. Jesus.
Keep your filthy fantasies to yourself, please.
Quote from: LaCroix on January 06, 2017, 02:33:33 PM
I thought you were against "post-truth" ;)
Right. We've also got nonsensical non-sequiturs in the mix. Thanks for the reminder.
WTF you talking about LaCroix?
feelings over facts. an argument relying on anecdotes can be choosing feelings over facts
this, coupled with the rise of terms like "post-truth" used by the left to attack the right, = my post
Quote from: LaCroix on January 06, 2017, 03:02:31 PM
feelings over facts. an argument relying on anecdotes can be choosing feelings over facts
this, coupled with the rise of terms like "post-truth" used by the left to attack the right, = my post
Cool topic. What do you want to talk about related to it?
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2017, 03:23:49 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 06, 2017, 03:02:31 PM
feelings over facts. an argument relying on anecdotes can be choosing feelings over facts
this, coupled with the rise of terms like "post-truth" used by the left to attack the right, = my post
Cool topic. What do you want to talk about related to it?
nothing right now, hence the ;)
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2017, 03:23:49 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on January 06, 2017, 03:02:31 PM
feelings over facts. an argument relying on anecdotes can be choosing feelings over facts
this, coupled with the rise of terms like "post-truth" used by the left to attack the right, = my post
Cool topic. What do you want to talk about related to it?
You're such a sensitive flower sometimes.
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 03:26:42 PM
You're such a sensitive flower sometimes.
Your best line yet!
Is it original?
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2017, 04:15:49 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 03:26:42 PM
You're such a sensitive flower sometimes.
Your best line yet!
Is it original?
Nah, this wise man taught me it.
I called Fahdiz and Unique snowflake a decade ago. Apparently, it's now a common alt-right insult. I'm really disappointed.
Quote from: Razgovory on January 06, 2017, 04:22:28 PM
I called Fahdiz and Unique snowflake a decade ago. Apparently, it's now a common alt-right insult. I'm really disappointed.
You mean Monique? :huh:
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 04:20:36 PM
Nah, this wise man taught me it.
:lol:
Okay, I have no suitable reply. I concede this round to you.
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2017, 04:42:38 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 04:20:36 PM
Nah, this wise man taught me it.
:lol:
Okay, I have no suitable reply. I concede this round to you.
:hug:
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2017, 02:12:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 02:10:59 PM
True, pretty good description of what you, CC and D4Gul did. ;)
Right, we've also got tiresome attempts at wit like you just demonstrated.
To quote Garbon, what we say doesn't fit with his narrative.
See how that works Garbon?
Quote from: Valmy on January 05, 2017, 08:31:17 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 05, 2017, 07:58:56 PM
You are conflating the issue. Again, MiM's observation was that everyone who wishes to become a politician is suspect. Not that some politician are corrupt. But this is languish and the likes of Garbon hold sway here.
I am saying that feeling that way, that everybody who wishes to become a politician is suspect, is a pretty traditional American viewpoint. But then it is a pretty ancient view point that anybody who actually wants to rule is the worst person to be allowed to.
I had some time today so I read a number of political science pieces on the topic. It turns out there isn't much of a consensus. Some academics seem we are in the end days of democracy as faith in democratic institutions and, perhaps more importantly, participation in the democratic process decline. However, other authors suggest that the data is not entirely convincing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2017, 05:22:11 PM
Quote from: Jacob on January 06, 2017, 02:12:51 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 02:10:59 PM
True, pretty good description of what you, CC and D4Gul did. ;)
Right, we've also got tiresome attempts at wit like you just demonstrated.
To quote Garbon, what we say doesn't fit with his narrative.
See how that works Garbon?
Yeah, I see you, Crybaby. :hug:
garbon is en fuego today, man.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2017, 05:44:39 PM
garbon is en fuego today, man.
I'm so stir crazy. This evil cold has limited my social activities. <_<
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 06:51:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2017, 05:44:39 PM
garbon is en fuego today, man.
I'm so stir crazy. This evil cold has limited my social activities. <_<
Perhaps you could lash out in other ways?
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2017, 07:35:26 PM
Perhaps you could lash out in other ways?
I doubt it. This is garbon's safe space.
Quote from: crazy canuck on January 06, 2017, 07:35:26 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 06:51:17 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2017, 05:44:39 PM
garbon is en fuego today, man.
I'm so stir crazy. This evil cold has limited my social activities. <_<
Perhaps you could lash out in other ways?
I'm not the one who started crying about the decline of America.
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 07:47:44 PM
I'm not the one who started crying about the decline of America.
Says the guy not in America.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2017, 07:50:45 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 07:47:44 PM
I'm not the one who started crying about the decline of America.
Says the guy not in America.
We're just on a break. Sheesh.
Quote from: garbon on January 06, 2017, 07:52:42 PM
We're just on a break. Sheesh.
I don't think you're coming back.
Once you go Brit, that's just it.
Quote from: celedhring on January 06, 2017, 08:26:16 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2017, 05:44:39 PM
garbon is en fuego today, man.
en llamas.
You're welcome.
Who gives a fuck how many llamas he'd got, they're not on fire.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on January 06, 2017, 10:32:42 PM
Who gives a fuck how many llamas he'd got, they're not on fire.
So not one of these?
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/e7/41/11/e7411171d01b1cd246565fc4465a7658.jpg)
Hot.
Ted Cruz is a boil on the ass of the GOP. He's the Pied Piper of retards and the wanna-be retards.