There are those who regard states like Colorado seeking to remove Trump's name from the ballots as guilty of true voter suppression. Their excuse for denying him is his guilt for that which he was found not guilty of having perpetrated. And I agree with this. It truly is voter suppression.
But what of term limits? Is that not also denying a place on a ballot to one deemed no longer eligible simply for having served? That seems far worse than denying one for an alleged crime...whether it was committed or not! Indeed, it's punishing them for having ostensibly served the nation honorably.
Some who righteously oppose the Colorado type suppression at the same time support term limits. It's among the items brought up when seeking support for a Convention of States under Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution.
Of course, we already have term limits for the office of POTUS, so if Trump survives his many fraudulent attempts to keep him from the White House in November, he'll still be unable to seek a third term. If he performs no worse than he did while in office the first time, which was far better than the performances of either Obama and certainly the current moron falsely claimed to have actually won the position, I would be inclined to want a third term for him as well. Why not (setting aside for the sake of conversation how much older he'd be)? When George W. Bush completed his second term, and we were looking at either Obama or McCain, I was at that time willing to have given Bush a third term if it was legally possible (running as an incumbent without a primary challenger). Unlike way, way too many, I had looked into Obama and recognized his lack of intelligence and character and saw him as a threat to the good of the nation...a fear fully realized, as it turned out.
I don't want anyone telling me that an office holder with a great record can't be re-elected if that person is willing to continue serving. I can decide for myself if I think an office holder needs replacing.
Term limits is true voter suppression.
26 comments:
But ... term limits are in the Constitution. Planning on changing that?
Stan,
The 18th Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes. The 21st repealed that. Thus, the 22nd Amendment, which limited holding the presidency to two terms, can also be repealed. I would also imagine, that it would require a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on Senators and Congressmen.
I would support repealing the 22nd long before I'd ever support any infringements on anyone's ability to seek and win election to public office and my ability to vote for them. I know that repealing the 22nd puts us in jeopardy of suffering extended presidencies as occurred with FDR, but the electorate needs to be convinced one candidate better than another, or that a sitting politician is no longer worthy. Certainly, as was the case with FDR, too many unintelligent people exist and threaten us with their votes, but that's on the failures of those who cannot convince them otherwise. It harms us by denying us the further service of a beneficially effective elected official who cares to continue in the position.
To be even more direct, we're to be governed by the consent of the people. Term limits removes that consent.
It's interesting that you don't see any significant between the capricious attempts to remove Trump from ballots with no justification, and term limits. Obviously there are some surface level similarities, but as Stan noted, the constitutional issues are real.
I go back and forth on term limits. Anyone can see that this group of octogenarian idiots on congress should be removed (Maybe some Vince Flynn term limits?), yet I also believe that if idiots want to vote for corrupt old people that they should have the freedom to.
There is really no question that the founders wanted, and intended for elected office not to be a long career, and that they would be displeased by the political class we have now. Yet, they didn't put term limits in place.
I don't see how you can simply ignore the age issue here, as this trend of keeping people in office past their sell by dates is becoming commonplace.
Perhaps the answer is to follow the money, and put heavy restrictions on politicians sources of income. If the ability to amass vast sums of money in ways that reek of selling one's office was removed perhaps the problem would solve itself.
Finally, I'd argue that the political class has set things up so that incumbency is a huge advantage in elections. Again, perhaps reducing the prohibitive advantage of incumbency would be a way to achieve the goal without terms limits.
Art,
I'd add this. The attempts of various people to remove Trump, an individual, from ballots is being done outside the legal process. The attempt to invoke term limits can only be done through following the legally established process to pass laws. Further, if a majority of people vote for term limits it seems as if they've made their position clear on term limits.
Craig,
"It's interesting that you don't see any significant between the capricious attempts to remove Trump from ballots with no justification, and term limits. Obviously there are some surface level similarities, but as Stan noted, the constitutional issues are real."
That's because there is no significant difference. It's no less capricious to deny one simply on account of age, for example. There's less justification for term limits at all, given the arbitrary limit on presidents and the reasons for it. The constitutional issues are no more problematic than any other, as it's simply a matter of national will to amend the constitution, and in this case, repeal the 22nd as the 18th was.
"I go back and forth on term limits. Anyone can see that this group of octogenarian idiots on congress should be removed (Maybe some Vince Flynn term limits?), yet I also believe that if idiots want to vote for corrupt old people that they should have the freedom to."
Are you suggesting assassinations? Haven't we had enough of that talk with people suggesting hits on Trump (Kathy Griffin, Johnny Depp and a rapper or two)? For shame! And yes, idiots are still allowed to vote for whomever they stupidly believe is worthy of the office. That's how we got Obama and Biden. One needn't "overstay" one's welcome for idiots to suggest idiots are worthy of their vote.
I'm certainly not for supporting the reelection of corrupt politicians, and indeed believe it is up to those of us capable of recognizing them to persuade idiots against doing so themselves. But it's that lack of desire to put in the effort which is at the heart of calls for term limits. Politics is still a taboo subject and those who shy from it want irrational cop-out laws to take care of business for them.
"There is really no question that the founders wanted, and intended for elected office not to be a long career, and that they would be displeased by the political class we have now. Yet, they didn't put term limits in place."
I've heard this said, but have never seen any evidence that the notion was so widely held. One argument I've heard was the notion that a politician should enact laws and then go home and live under them like everyone else (a paraphrase, obviously), and this is used to suggest the founders opposed a long political career. The two-term limit was based on Washington's insistence he would serve no more than that and most everyone else followed suit. Not all, however, as Teddy Roosevelt sought a third term as did U.S. Grant, whose service as president was somewhat reluctant in the first place. Notably, FDR wasn't necessarily keen on a third term for himself (possibly his best thought ever!), but with the war on and a few other issues, he changed his mind and the nation thought keeping the same guy during the tough times was a good idea.
Getting back to the founders, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 69: “That magistrate is to be elected for four years; and is to be re-eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him worthy of their confidence.” (Hamilton also argued, in Federalist 71, in favour of a life term for the president of the United States.) (this part plagiarized from brittanica.com)
"I don't see how you can simply ignore the age issue here, as this trend of keeping people in office past their sell by dates is becoming commonplace."
My list of criteria for service has age well below track record, current performance and the like. Do you really believe Mitch McConnell's character issues are the result of his age? Would he be any less suspect if he was forty years younger?
"Perhaps the answer is to follow the money, and put heavy restrictions on politicians sources of income. If the ability to amass vast sums of money in ways that reek of selling one's office was removed perhaps the problem would solve itself."
The true answer is an engaged public paying attention. That would include those who work on the periphery, not excluding those who work for the politicians themselves. Everyone should be holding everyone accountable. But it begins with an electorate who supports people of character. Restrictions aren't any more compelling to good character than any other law.
"Finally, I'd argue that the political class has set things up so that incumbency is a huge advantage in elections. Again, perhaps reducing the prohibitive advantage of incumbency would be a way to achieve the goal without terms limits."
Familiarity is the main reason why incumbency matters at all, as well as one already in office absolves the voter of paying attention to those who might seek to replace him. If an incumbent isn't a total piece of shit, he's likely to get that next term. How can you reduce that advantage?
"Are you suggesting assassinations?"
Nope, just a little aside.
"But it's that lack of desire to put in the effort which is at the heart of calls for term limits."
That's quite the assumption. I guess it never occurred to you that it's almost impossible to influence elections in other states, and in states where one party or another is a significant minority. Of course virtually all laws are about stopping people (on punishing them) for doing something evil or stupid.
"I've heard this said, but have never seen any evidence that the notion was so widely held."
Well, that seals it. Since you haven't "seen" any evidence then it must not be True. Hell, start with Washington and how he felt about his second term. Look at how reluctant so many of the founders were to go into politics, and how ready they were to be out of politics.
It's always refreshing when people try to use the exceptions to prove the rule.
Are you really saying that you'd ignore McConnell's character issues of only he governed the way you think he should?
"supports people of character", what an interesting standard. It's even more interesting when you blast people for supporting "people of character" over Trump who has little character.
Again, your hunch about familiarity might be one factor, but it certainly isn't the only factor.
The problems with your position are-
1. It's hard to take seriously your support of Trump with your claims about holding people accountable for their character.
2. Either character is important or it's not, pick one.
"I'd add this. The attempts of various people to remove Trump, an individual, from ballots is being done outside the legal process."
Those making those attempts would disagree, believing they have a legitimate reason for their actions. Note that in each case, some member of the state government is acting toward that end. It's enough for me to know that these people have no legitimate case for doing so, yet are acting by their interpretation (a stretch though it may be) of their duties and obligations. Their reasoning is not only greatly flawed, but not indicative of having put in much effort to come up with it.
"The attempt to invoke term limits can only be done through following the legally established process to pass laws."
That doesn't mitigate the suppressive effect. I'm still denied the ability to vote for the person I believe is best for the gig, as well as denying that person the ability to serve. It's merely assumed that limiting service is a good idea without having any substantive argument for doing so.
" Further, if a majority of people vote for term limits it seems as if they've made their position clear on term limits."
Yeah. There's no law prohibiting THIS stupidity, is there? (A reference to a comment of yours submitted later.)
"That's quite the assumption."
Not so much. Have you been trying to persuade those in your circle of influence? Are you inundated with attempts to persuade you from within your circle of influence? I have been, though not as much as I'd like. After many, many years of it, I can now count two people who no longer vote Democrat (not sure if my wife even voted before we got together, in which case she'd make three) and a high school buddy who didn't think me smart enough to bother considering my arguments, finally got wise after another said the same things. So, I may have played a role in how as many as four people altered their positions. Imagine if every conservative did as much. (Imagine if every Christian preached to unbelievers!)
"I guess it never occurred to you that it's almost impossible to influence elections in other states, and in states where one party or another is a significant minority."
How does term limits convince a Dem to vote for a Republican?
"Of course virtually all laws are about stopping people (on punishing them) for doing something evil or stupid."
Supporting term limits is stupid...possibly evil.
"Well, that seals it. Since you haven't "seen" any evidence then it must not be True."
WTF, Craig??! You're not talking to Dan here! There's no call to treat me as if you were! Clearly my comments included evidence the claim you're making is NOT true. And while what you claim is commonly stated, it's never stated with anything on the order of evidence to back it up.
"Hell, start with Washington and how he felt about his second term. Look at how reluctant so many of the founders were to go into politics, and how ready they were to be out of politics."
I mentioned Washington, but I'll go further in insisting that he acted out of his own conviction about his OWN service. I don't know that he ever suggested anyone follow his lead. And since the founders never saw fit to limit terms of service, it's a stretch to suggest they'd be cool with it now despite how contemporary "servants of the people" behave!
Reluctance to serve does not mean those who felt it a duty would not do so. As I mentioned, Grant was a reluctant president and he was willing to serve a third term out of a sense of duty. So the reluctance angle is meaningless. It's likely you and I are both reluctant to do some things we do nonetheless out of a sense of responsibility. Reluctance is no factor in arguing for term limits.
And I wouldn't be surprised that one who was especially keen to win an election was just as keen to not do it again. Thus, another weak argument for term limits.
"It's always refreshing when people try to use the exceptions to prove the rule."
What rule? Washington's choice set a precedent others followed. It did not institute a rule. And as no rule was even in place until 1951 (the 22nd Amendment's ratification), I'm not even sure I know what you mean by that.
"Are you really saying that you'd ignore McConnell's character issues of only he governed the way you think he should?"
I think I made clear how I factor in such things in discussions about Trump. There's a difference between having character issues versus whether or not those issues matter in how one does the job. Those issues have more meaning before one is chosen for the job, the person is monitored while doing the job, and so long as the character flaws don't result in bad performance, they are no longer as significant. Of course it depends on the specific character issue of concern.
More importantly is my meaning which you seem to ignore with this question. We were talking about age. I mentioned McConnell because of his character issues, asking if his age was the source of his character issues...if his age matters to those issues. You mentioned age as a justification term limits. I was clearly putting character issues as a greater concern than age. I put performance over character issues (again, depending upon the character issue of concern).
Great performance in office suggests character traits I prefer in a public servant which I regard more important than negative traits which only affect those in his personal life. As with Trump in the primaries to the run up of the 2016, his personal indiscretions and bombastic manner were concerning (along with the absence of political experience). After he was in office, those negative traits aren't as concerning due to his performance in office.
Are you getting this yet, or are you still willing to put the nation at risk because of an arbitrary distance from perfection?
" "supports people of character", what an interesting standard. It's even more interesting when you blast people for supporting "people of character" over Trump who has little character."
It's a standard you claim to honor. You seem to honor it more than competence. Trump proved he was competent and others running against him haven't proven their competence on the same level, because they haven't served on that level. Thus, I'm not going just bail on the guy because someone else vying for the job doesn't send mean tweets or hasn't committed adultery. Again, I'm thinking of the good of the nation, which is what matters most.
"Again, your hunch about familiarity might be one factor, but it certainly isn't the only factor."
Fortunately, "main" reason isn't at all the same as "only" reason. But it is the main reason, and that isn't a stretch considering the electorate in general. How many actually pay attention? I'd wager precious few.
"The problems with your position are-
1. It's hard to take seriously your support of Trump with your claims about holding people accountable for their character."
Only if you choose to ignore everything I've said on the topic...which it seems you do.
"2. Either character is important or it's not, pick one."
I already did. I just don't put it in the same position on the list of important considerations. Again, where one is in the process as well as what specific flaws of character are of concern make a difference in how one ranks "character" in a candidate. I wouldn't be a mature and responsible voter if I put character (a rather general and vague criteria on its own) over every other thing I must consider.
"How does term limits convince a Dem to vote for a Republican?"
Who says it would? But by all means, let's see how you fare trying to flip votes in CA or IL.
"You're not talking to Dan here!"
No, just dealing with the same crap I hear from him. I pointed you in a couple of different directions, if you want to wait for me to do your research for you, then wait.
"I'm not even sure I know what you mean by that."
I was pointing out that you apparently think that the fact that there were some exceptions, somehow proves the rule.
"Those issues have more meaning before one is chosen for the job, the person is monitored while doing the job, and so long as the character flaws don't result in bad performance, they are no longer as significant. Of course it depends on the specific character issue of concern."
I understand now, character is only important to you when your personally decide that it is. Which seems to be when a politician is acting as you want them to act. This simply raises doubt as to how important you think character is.
" You mentioned age as a justification term limits."
Not exactly. Age limits are already in place for elected officials. Noting that one would have concerns with a 16 year old running for elected office because of cognitive issues, is no difference than noting that an 80 year old is more likely to have cognitive issues than a 40 year old.
But hey, if you're willing to let people vote for a senator who's senile, then more power to y'all. I think a senile senator is probably not great. But according to your standards, you'd per perfectly fine with that.
"Are you getting this yet, or are you still willing to put the nation at risk because of an arbitrary distance from perfection?"
What a bizarre binary. You just claimed that "character" was important. Now you're claiming that failure to vote for the guy you like, guarantees putting the nation at risk?
Hypothetically, wouldn't electing any 80 year old president with their increased chance of cognitive decline be putting the nation at risk? Wouldn't having to depose a president via the 25th amendment also pose some risk?
"It's a standard you claim to honor."
Yes, I do value character highly, I'm not willing to sacrifice character for competency when the option for both exists.
"You seem to honor it more than competence.
Back to bullshit.
"Trump proved he was competent and others running against him haven't proven their competence on the same level, because they haven't served on that level."
This is quite the circular argument, we shouldn't vote for someone who's never been president, because they haven't been president. Except for Trump, 'cause y'all didn't apply this standard to Trump in 2016. Of course measuring Trump's competence would involve assessing both his successes and failures.
"Thus, I'm not going just bail on the guy because someone else vying for the job doesn't send mean tweets or hasn't committed adultery. Again, I'm thinking of the good of the nation, which is what matters more."
If you say so.
This notion that you think that this is persuasive boggles my mind.
Craig,
"How does term limits convince a Dem to vote for a Republican?"
"Who says it would? But by all means, let's see how you fare trying to flip votes in CA or IL."
I asked my question when you objected to my suggestion that it's political debate which is a better means by which to increase agreement and support for one's candidate or political philosophy. That is, better than terming out existing politicians who would only be replaced by someone very similar. This is most apparently true in states with a heavy percentage of one part over the other among the electorate. Think your own Minneapolis versus my former Chicago. You could term out mayors constantly and you'll likely end up with another Dem.
Yet we see in the presidency that more than numbers makes a difference. When one is termed out, it's not uncommon to see the dude replaced by one from the other party. This is due to the performance having more impact than party affiliation. It might mean the dejected don't vote and the other party has a better opportunity, but the reality serves my argument well.
Yet, it was in my former home where I had the success I've had in changing hearts and minds. Unfortunately, I'm only one person with a limited stage from which to make my case. Thus, were political discussion and debate MORE common than less...as two things you never talk about among friends and family are politics and religion is commonly preached...hearts and minds could indeed be changed. That's why in Christianity we're encouraged to evangelize and preach...because not doing so doesn't lead anyone to anything more than remaining the same.
So help me flip more votes.
"No, just dealing with the same crap I hear from him. I pointed you in a couple of different directions, if you want to wait for me to do your research for you, then wait."
This is crap. Just because I said something you commonly hear from Dan doesn't mean my saying it was said in the same spirit or to the same end as what Dan commonly intends. I simply said that this notion of what the founders believed is never backed up with any specific quotes or evidence to support it. I gave a paraphrase of how the argument is presented, then I offered info which debunks the notion. Hamilton in two Federalist essays, two presidents seeking a third term as quick examples. So where you pointed me didn't get me to where you wanted me to go and I would indeed like you to do some research because what I've found still isn't getting me to anyplace where the founders would have approved of term limits:
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/senators-should-serve-for-life-and-other-election-ideas-from-the-founders-1
https://www.georgiapol.com/2016/05/12/america-founded-career-politicians/
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2015/10/30/ben-carson-and-the-myth-of-citizen-statesmen
I would add that I found the above after googling "the founders on career politicians". I can try other search terms later, but I feel confident that what I've found already significantly debunks the notion that the founders would have been cool with term limits. Washington's stepping down was apparently after spending most of his life in government service.
I have no problem with new blood. But new blood for new blood's sake is a horrible reason to reject any politician...even a bad one. Being bad should be reason enough.
"I was pointing out that you apparently think that the fact that there were some exceptions, somehow proves the rule."
Ah...I see. Of course as I said, there's no rule, and certainly wasn't any when those exceptions occurred.
"I understand now, character is only important to you when your personally decide that it is."
Of course. As it is with you. Am I supposed to apologize for it? To you it's more important that preventing one with not only as bad or worse character, but proposals which are clearly detrimental for you and your fellow Americans...which can be regarded as a problematic character issue on your part.
That's even more likely the case if you don't regard some character issues as being worse than others before insisting "character" is of the ultimate importance. Consider:
--Bill Clinton was accused of womanizing to an extent where several women accused him of assault and rape, as well as adultery. Those accusations were credible by virtue of the fact the women were adamant and ready to be put to the test to confirm the veracity of their claims. No E. Jean Carroll among them. Clearly bad character.
--Donald Trump has long been known for his adultery and love of hot babes. No credible accusation of rape or assault has been brought forth. Some from a list Dan likes to bring up are laughable. Clearly bad character, but I'd argue not nearly as bad as Clinton.
--Jimmy Carter admitted to lusting in his heart. According to Scripture, this is akin to adultery itself. Clearly bad character, but I don't anyone who would put it on par with either Trump or Clinton.
Of the three, one would be hard pressed to put either Dem above Trump in terms of beneficial effectiveness as president, such that his second term was actually deserved. His character flaws of a sexual nature were not manifested during his first term (no stained blue dresses) and thus, his bad character does not rank as significant enough to withhold one's vote and allow a second Biden term or another potential eight years of a Dem president if they get Biden to step away. Given the harm Dems are more than likely to visit upon the nation, I regard as a serious character flaw anyone who would use "character" as a reason to reject Trump if he's the GOP nominee, as it seems he will be.
So rather than posture as overly sanctimonious, I am confident in the righteousness of putting character of any candidate in its proper place on a list of pros and cons one must consider when choosing a candidate.
More coming a bit later...
" This simply raises doubt as to how important you think character is. "
It shouldn't given how crystal clear and soundly logical I've been in explaining it. Bottom line...as important as character is, it's not the only thing one must consider and sometimes not even the most important thing.
"Not exactly. Age limits are already in place for elected officials. Noting that one would have concerns with a 16 year old running for elected office because of cognitive issues, is no difference than noting that an 80 year old is more likely to have cognitive issues than a 40 year old."
The limitations of a young person isn't a matter of cognition, but of maturity. In an old person, cognition is more an appropriate term when decay in his mental abilities becomes apparent. Yet it doesn't occur in every old person. The Trump/Biden comparison is the perfect example of that given their closeness in age. It's not a legitimate thing to deny one a place on a ballot because they might suffer cognitive decay. Thomas Sowell is in his nineties and he's as sharp as a tack.
"But hey, if you're willing to let people vote for a senator who's senile, then more power to y'all. I think a senile senator is probably not great. But according to your standards, you'd per perfectly fine with that."
That's quite an outlandish conclusion to draw from my comments! "Old" is not synonymous with "senility". That I won't presume one being elderly is a legit excuse to deny one elective office doesn't mean I'm at all "fine" with voting for one who is "senile". Your comment suggests a bad attitude toward old people. Maybe that's why you're giving me such shit...cuz I'm getting old. (Some say I already am!)
"What a bizarre binary. You just claimed that "character" was important. Now you're claiming that failure to vote for the guy you like, guarantees putting the nation at risk?"
"Bizarre" is the weak connection you're making between what I've said and how you're choosing to portray it. However, if by saying this you're confirming my understanding is correct that you will not vote for Trump if he's the GOP nominee, then you're validating that your failure to vote for the guy I like is put the nation at risk...because that's exactly the case! This is true regardless of whether his opponent is Biden or some other putz the Dems put in his place. That party has been destructive and our people have suffered as a result of them being in power, and you've attested that yourself. As such, both are true: character is important and you denying this person of flawed character your vote serves to put the nation at risk.
Thanks for the help.
"Hypothetically, wouldn't electing any 80 year old president with their increased chance of cognitive decline be putting the nation at risk?"
Hypothetically, yes. But "hypothetical" isn't "guarantee".
"Wouldn't having to depose a president via the 25th amendment also pose some risk?"
Every choice is a trade-off. If a senile president is risky, then we weigh the risk of leaving him in or facing whatever removing him might bring.
"Yes, I do value character highly, I'm not willing to sacrifice character for competency when the option for both exists."
Well that sounds noble, but what is the reality? Just how low is the character of the competent person? How competent is the person whose low character is only not great? Once again, there's a trade-off. If we're to suppose the opponent of your low character candidate of competence is proposing bad policy, then you're suggesting allowing another low character individual to supplant another. Which person's character will result in the most harm to the nation? Between Trump and Biden (or Newsom or Obama perhaps), it's more than clear. Trump won't hurt us as badly, assuming he'll hurt us at all.
"Back to bullshit."
You just contradicted yourself.
More later...
"This is quite the circular argument, we shouldn't vote for someone who's never been president, because they haven't been president. Except for Trump, 'cause y'all didn't apply this standard to Trump in 2016. Of course measuring Trump's competence would involve assessing both his successes and failures."
Nothing circular about it. Even given the term doesn't describe my argument if it was what you need it to be, I never said anything at all about not voting for someone who wasn't president before. I simply said that Trump having been beneficially effective president is something he has in his favor none of the other primary contenders have. Now I know you're really keen on focusing only on the fewer negative than positive aspects of his presidency to dismiss that notable advantage, but that's your problem. You prefer to assess his successes and failures differently, giving more weight to that which you regard as overwhelming negatives as if they are.
As to his 2016 run, I did indeed give weight to his lack of experience by choosing Ted Cruz in the primary. Come the general, we had two people of questionable character who had no experience as president, unless you bought the "two for one" angle Bubba was running. And of course, if Obama was able to have had a third term, his "experience" was rife with problems which would mean his "experience" would not have given him an edge over Trump, who had an entirely more favorable platform.
"If you say so."
It's surprising and problematic you won't. The problem is that you insist on considering character as if it's the only criteria for choosing a candidate. Are you being like Dan here and insisting I must see things your way? (If not, I would appreciate it if you not compare me to Dan should I say something with a superficial resemblance to his argumentative style) My comment, to which your flippant comment was in response, was referring to where we are now. Is Haley the superior choice because she doesn't act like Trump (though I would say her behavior hasn't been all that gracious during this primary campaign), or that Trump's character is such that you'd let a Dem win without casting a vote come November? I don't how to express any differently than I had prior to his bowing out, but DeSantis remained for me a viable possibility come my chance to cast a primary vote. Just because I leaned toward Trump, I wasn't a "Trainer" to the extent that he was a lock in my mind. Now, that decision has been made for me by DeSantis. Or is Asa Hutchinson now your man? That would make three people voting for him: you, Asa and his wife.
All that matters is what's best for the nation. As it stands now, that's either Trump or whomever the Dems put up to run against him in the general. Try and make a case the what's best for the nation is "anyone but Trump". Bobby Jr. ain't the answer. Manchin/Romney ain't the answer.
Finally...for now at least...all this has strayed from the topic, which is that term limits are another form of voter suppression. There's no intelligent argument for them, aside from the fact that the electorate is unworthy to make such decisions. That's a sad indictment on the nation.
Art,
You seem to think that I am arguing in favor of term limits, which I am not.
While your first comment spoke of your vacillation on the issue, the bulk of it does imply leaning in that direction.
The real point of the post is simply to point out term limits are another form of voter suppression. I stand by that.
Yes, I do go back and forth on the issue, but it's more that your arguments aren't enough to push me one way or the other.
By your standards any restrictions on anyone running for office limits people's choices, and is voter suppression.
Art,
I'll add this. I'm much more receptive to a state imposing restrictions on candidates than I am to the feds.
"Yes, I do go back and forth on the issue, but it's more that your arguments aren't enough to push me one way or the other."
I really haven't done anything more than simply assert the fact that term limits is a form of voter suppression. Anything resembling an argument was in response to things you said, none of which debunked that fact in any compelling way.
"By your standards any restrictions on anyone running for office limits people's choices, and is voter suppression."
Uh...yeah...but that's only because it's true. Even if one was to support felons being denied, obviously their ability to vote is suppressed by that restriction. As to those seeking office, to deny them for illegitimate reasons...hell, even for legitimate reasons...constitutes voter suppression. The problem for me is that term limits hasn't been supported in a manner which is compelling. Indeed, arguments for term limits are rather lacking, as well as easily countered.
"I'm much more receptive to a state imposing restrictions on candidates than I am to the feds."
In as much as states are constitutionally authorized to determine election laws, and not the feds, it would still require a compelling, unassailable argument.
When it comes to laws and regulations, I'm really concerned about denying good people of their liberty to do whatever. Here, Trump is unjustly denied in the states hoping to keep him off the ballot, and citizens are denied their ability to elect who they believe is best suited for a given office. The fear of something going awry, such as dementia is an elected official, can have provisions to cover that possibility. But to presume that, say, age will automatically result in dementia a given politician is not just. To presume that merely repeated terms ups the possibility of corruption is also unjust. I'd much rather the electorate pay attention and act on any suspicion through the vote, rather than have that ability removed from me and everyone else. I don't like laws which put out good people...like all the moronic gun laws. This is the same thing in that regard.
That may be True, but any restrictions on who can run for office are, by your definition, voter suppression. I've been impressed by CJ Pearson over the last couple of years, and would absolutely support him in his run for a legislative seat. Unfortunately, because of arbitrary limits that restrict who can run for president I can't vote for him for that office. As long as there are restrictions on who can run for office, there will be (by your definition) voter suppression.
It seems like your argument comes down to what you feel are fair and justified reasons for things, while that's fine, it's not a something to impose on others, or to be pissed about when others don;t agree with you.
"That may be True, but any restrictions on who can run for office are, by your definition, voter suppression."
That's because they are, even if the restrictions are logical and legitimate, such as denying a mass murderer or someone who has demonstrated fealty to an enemy foreign government. Someone might actually want to vote for such people, but due to those legit restrictions, they're choice is nonetheless suppressed.
But again, to speak in general terms and not be at least specific enough to reject such examples as I just mentioned, we're still left with good people being denied their liberty to run for office or to vote for one's preferred choice.
(As a sidebar, I'm not up to snuff with the details of these states which are trying to keep Trump off the ballot. Would that preclude a win through the use of write-in votes? He had met all other criteria for being on the ballot after all.)
Term limits are arbitrary. They don't speak to a specific problem which is automatic or guaranteed by extended service, but seeks to prevent a potential problem coming to fruition...a potential which isn't guaranteed to be realized simply by virtue of extended service.
"As long as there are restrictions on who can run for office, there will be (by your definition) voter suppression."
Exactly. The only real question is whether or not those limits are justified in suppressing any vote. There's been no compelling argument for term limits and thus the answer to the question is "No. The restrictions are not justified and thus the suppression of the vote isn't, either."
"It seems like your argument comes down to what you feel are fair and justified reasons for things, while that's fine, it's not a something to impose on others, or to be pissed about when others don;t agree with you."
All laws, regulations and restrictions represent an imposition on someone, yet those I prefer are a problem? How does that work? I don't think there's a law, regulation or restriction which doesn't piss someone off, and likely a great number. That's not the point at all. The only point is whether or not a restriction is just and fair and that argument must be legitimately made for term limits. So far it hasn't been, and you've presented none.
I would add that while you suggest something negative about being pissed when others disagree, term limits represent a manifestation of that very attitude. If not enough people agree that an office holder must be replaced, you'll impose that belief on others by denying that office holder additional terms. Then you'll expect that those people not be pissed, as if you wouldn't be pissed they didn't agree the dude had to go if no term limits forced it.
Post a Comment