Politics: The Undiscovered Country

[Guard Dog]

The Presidency is more trouble than it's worth. I say we abolish the office. The founders were big fans of the Roman Republic so let's take a page from their book. On December 21 of each year all the names of all 50 state governors are placed into a pool. One name is drawn. Similarly the name of all 535 members of Congress are put in a pool and one name will be drawn. The two "winners" will be co-consul's for one year January 1 to December 31. All the executive authority from Article Two invested in each equally. They have to agree on any action the executive branch takes. 

Damn shame this is not a workable idea. There is a 67% chance in any given year the consulships would be split over the two parties. At least we would be safe most of the time!

Edited September 26, 2019 by Guard Dog

[Pidesco]

7 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

The Presidency is more trouble than it's worth. I say we abolish the office. The founders were big fans of the Roman Republic so let's take a page from their book. On December 21 of each year all the names of all 50 state governors are placed into a pool. One name is drawn. Similarly the name of all 535 members of Congress are put in a pool and one name will be drawn. The two "winners" will be co-consul's for one year January 1 to December 31. All the executive authority from Article Two invested in each equally. They have to agree on any action the executive branch takes. 

Damn shame this is not a workable idea. There is a 67% chance in any given year the consulships would be split over the two parties. At least we would be safe most of the time!

Then all you'd need would be a general with the unwavering support of his army, and a really, really, really smart protégé. Pax Americana next.

No possible pitfalls in this plan, surely.

 

[Guard Dog]

1 minute ago, Pidesco said:

Then all you'd need would be a general with the unwavering support of his army, and a really, really, really smart protégé. Pax Americana next.

No possible pitfalls in this plan, surely.

 

Hell I say we go a little further. Put each in command of half the military and wait and see how long it takes them to declare war on each other. I bet we won't make it 20 yeas.

[Pidesco]

The whistleblower complaint is here:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whistleblower-complaint-declassified-version-of-complaint-released-by-house-intelligence-committee-ahead-of-dni/

 

Parsed new stuff (not by me):

-WH realized that the call was problematic, and attempted to remove it from normal storage locations
-It was instead put into a system normally reserved for highly classified conversations... though nothing of a sensitive nature was discussed
-In a follow up meeting with Ukraine the next day, there was further discussion of how to meet President Trumps demands.
-Giuliani met with advisors to the Ukraine's president on August 2nd to discuss investigating Biden
-Summary of events concerning Ambassador Yovanovich (US Ambassador to Ukraine)
-attached memorandum brings up other actions that appear to be designed to pressure Ukraine to cooperate for demands to investigate Trumps political opponents - such as halting security cooperation.

Edited September 26, 2019 by Pidesco
Couldn't get the google drive link to work in firefox.

[smjjames]

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

The Presidency is more trouble than it's worth. I say we abolish the office. The founders were big fans of the Roman Republic so let's take a page from their book. On December 21 of each year all the names of all 50 state governors are placed into a pool. One name is drawn. Similarly the name of all 535 members of Congress are put in a pool and one name will be drawn. The two "winners" will be co-consul's for one year January 1 to December 31. All the executive authority from Article Two invested in each equally. They have to agree on any action the executive branch takes. 

Damn shame this is not a workable idea. There is a 67% chance in any given year the consulships would be split over the two parties. At least we would be safe most of the time!

While Trump would obviously be excluded in such a system, having Trump and Clinton as co-Presidents is definetly a funny mental image.

Also, you made a typo, 538 members of Congress, not 535.

Edited September 26, 2019 by smjjames

[Gfted1]

We need term limits. Badly. No term limits for Congress is moronic, imo.

[smjjames]

38 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

We need term limits. Badly. No term limits for Congress is moronic, imo.

The thing though is that there are pros and cons to that, on one side, you wouldn't have people being in safe seats for decades on end, on the other, you'd struggle to gain the kind of experience that comes with decades in office and you don't want too much turnover either. Term limits would be nice, but while 'how long is too long? is easier to define, 'how short is too short' isn't so easy because you have to strike a balance between accruing legislative experience and turnover.

The GOP does have self-imposed term limits on committee chairs though, which isn't quite the same as written in stone term limits.

[ShadySands]

I think I read somewhere that the average length of time in congress is about 10 years so I'd probably cap it at no higher than 20 years. Though I'd also be for letting terms that would run a little longer continue on. Example would be someone with 15 to 19 years experience ( and assuming a 20 year limit) winning a senate race that would keep them in office to 21 to 25 years and they would be done after that. 

[Gfted1]

I do worry about "brain drain", but on the other hand, we wouldnt wind up with 50 year cancerous tumors like the racist Strom Thurmond. I know hes an outlier so maybe 20 years is a nice middle ground as Shady suggests.

[Gromnir]

personal pov is term limits is kinda a backwards effort to address the money problem.  campaign finance, in particular, is out of control and undermines the notion that election to Congress is public service. getting elected should not make the ghost o' robin leach shudder at the excess.

HA! Good Fun!

[ShadySands]

I tend to think of them as different issues generally. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting as much money out of politics as possible too and I think both need to be accomplished to get any meaningful change.

[Gromnir]

52 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

I tend to think of them as different issues generally. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting as much money out of politics as possible too and I think both need to be accomplished to get any meaningful change.

am curious. what is it 'bout serving extended time which makes a Congressman bad, or at least worse? if is not related to money, then am having even less reason to agree with term limit concerns. voters democratic choose person they want and maybe even believe is best representative. as such, term limits necessarily limits viable candidates from being able to hold office. so gotta have good reasons for term limits.

the President, as we are current seeing, is a different animal compared to legislators. the reason the doj and wh attorneys keep finding the President cannot be investigated for _______ and that he has limitless privilege is 'cause the entire authority o' the executive branch exists in one office: the President of the United States of America. taken to ridiculous extreme, an extreme held by a few scholars and william barr, the fbi has no authority to investigate the President unless the President allows, 'cause regardless o' what Congress says, fbi authority comes from the President. given the extremes to which Presidential power could theoretic be abused, am understanding why an Amendment were added to limit Presidential terms. after all, what were theoretic abusess in 1947 is very real in 2019.

but legislators? ignore conspiracy theory stuff and make argument for term limits which don't contravene voter choice. perhaps think turnover is good 'cause promotes new blood and new ideas. then again, maybe the folks voting don't want new ideas and who says new ideas is necessarily good? new is not same as positive progress.  

perhaps corruption is the concern. long serving legislator is more or less subject to corruption? gonna have a hard time making a good argument that time in office makes more vulnerable and doing so is gonna necessarily rely on gut rather than factual basis regardless. younger and more idealistic makes less subject to corruption? hardly. junior legislators, particular house of representatives, need concern selves with getting reelected even before they get elected. the inherent vulnerability o' being junior arguable makes more subject to corruption. woulda' been harder to muscle sam nunn in the 90s or ms. nobody from nowheresville? 

take money complete out o' the argument and am left with kinda gut level notions that long-term service leads to complacency, indolence and corruption. the thing is, the complacent and indolence stuff is just reverse side o' the coin o' consistent, which may very well be what voters want. meanwhile, the corruption argument has never been particular strong... save insofar as money is the issue.

term limits resonate. is one o' those seeming easy to communicate and easy to understand fixes which has broad appeal. heck, am personal not against term limits 'cause efforts to curb money has been an abject failure. makes sense if you can't get the money problem fixed, then at least mitigate damage by limiting terms. even so, am recognizing how term limits is inherent undemocratic and as such am needing a strong reason to support. money is such a reason, but the indolence, complacency and corruption arguments is kinda thin.

other reasons? 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 26, 2019 by Gromnir
remove repeated words

[Skarpen]

To be frank people should change their politicians as often as their diapers and for the same reasons.

[Gromnir]

well, if true, this is gonna make harder to marginalize the whistleblower impressions... gonna be difficult to claim whistleblower didn't understand or had too narrow a view o' events. converse, am hopeful this does not discourage the whistleblower from testifying.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

I dunno man. "The people" cant even be trusted to not eat laundry pods, have to be "protected from themselves" from all manner of vice and almost universally develop a pack mentality. But on electing government officials their "will" should be respected ad infinitum? Needs more checks and balances imo. 

[Gromnir]

3 minutes ago, Gfted1 said:

I dunno man. "The people" cant even be trusted to not eat laundry pods, have to be "protected from themselves" from all manner of vice and almost universally develop a pack mentality. But on electing government officials their "will" should be respected ad infinitum? Needs more checks and balances imo. 

the people are the ones who decide, through their elected representatives, the stuff you claim they can't be trusted with. 

regardless, you aren't actual making an argument in favor o' term limits.

oh, and checks and balances is one o' those argument used often in the Con column when discussing term limits. after all, the executive branch is populated with career politicians. often the legislature works with those bureaucrats, but often they work adversarial. term limits is necessarily making Legislature less experienced, which functional strengthens the executive. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

I haven't seen legislation for any of the three things I mentioned. Do you have a link? Didn't you also just say the executive branch has limits because reasons, but now you say they don't? Or are you just talking about random executive agencies ala DoS and DoJ?

[Gromnir]

1 minute ago, Gfted1 said:

I haven't seen legislation for any of the three things I mentioned. Do you have a link? Didn't you alos just say the executive branch has limits because reasons, but now you say they don't? Or are you just talking about random executive agencies ala DoS and DoJ?

there isn't a ban on laundry pods, 'cause there hasn't been legislation. can't show 'cause doesn't exist. duh.  your absurdist notions, as usual, fly in face o' reality. it's the people who decide to ban the stuff, through their elected representatives.  rando folks complaining 'bout laundry pod dangers is... absurdist.

we said the President has a limit. the executive branch is far larger than the President, which is why we spoke o' bureaucrats and career politicians... folks not elected btw.  "but now you say they don't."  do you even read posts? not that it matters as this is high school level civics/government level kinda stuff.

but again, not making an argument in favor o' term limits. fact some folks wanna ban laundry pods is relevant to term limits because...? 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

The dain bramage is fo'real. Honestly, do you make it though any conversation, internet or real life, without going full maroon.

"People cant wipe their own bottom without instruction and handholding, but in the matter of electing government officials they should be trusted". Ok man.

[Gromnir]

Just now, Gfted1 said:

The dain bramage is fo'real. Honestly, do you make it though any conversation, internet or real life, without going full maroon.

 

first absurdist and now this?

nevertheless, you still haven't made an argument in favor o' term limits. no shock. predictable.

HA! Good Fun!

[Gfted1]

At least you made it 2-3 post before soiling the thread so I can call that a win for everyone.

[Gromnir]

1 minute ago, Gfted1 said:

At least you made it 2-3 post before soiling the thread so I can call that a win for everyone.

am knowing a response to gifted will result in absurdity, insult and at least one mind boggling read comprehension and/or math fail.  we can't claim victory when am encouraging the inevitable fails.

'OK' is now a hate symbol, the ADL says

our feeble attempt to keep thread on-topic, given how gifted don't wanna add anything to the term limit issue he raised. ironic? go figure.

HA! Good Fun!

[ShadySands]

I don't think holding office for a very long time is bad in and of itself but I don't think it's a positive either as I'm also not seeing how being in office for 30 to 60 years has any innate advantages. Even if we can move to 100% publicly funded elections (and especially if we cannot) I do think that term limits would still have a beneficial effect though I don't have any sort of proof to support my ideas. Ideas which are generally the same pro term limit arguments you'll find anywhere.

 

[Gromnir]

25 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

I don't think holding office for a very long time is bad in and of itself but I don't think it's a positive either as I'm also not seeing how being in office for 30 to 60 years has any innate advantages. 

 

that's a problem though. let's assume, for the moment, there is no advantage to being in office for three or more decades. is absence o' a positive enough reason to write a law, an Amendment, which would prohibit such? voting is a fundamental right, which may not mean much to some folks, but is kinda foundational. is not that many fundamental rights. twenty second amendment couldn't be simple legislation and neither could term limits. kinda a questionable precedent to impose limits on a fundamental right w/o any genuine recognition o' the need for such.

btw, ted cruz recent sponsored a constitutional amendment in support o' senate term limits: two terms. kinda amusing as would not work retroactive or current so as written, ted, who had already been elected to two terms 'coulda gotten two more.

were ted cruz theatre. were no way an amendment would get passed, particularly in current political devise environment, but the public is overwhelming in favor o' term limits. however, even if is passed, ted would get opportunity for two more terms? HA! can stand up and champion something voters want w/o any fear o' needing be personal responsible.

again, am actual kinda sorta favoring/ambivalent 'bout term limits, but for us is 'cause attempts to limit money has failed repeated.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 26, 2019 by Gromnir
better link... or maybe worse

[Gfted1]

Every conversation with you ends the same way. Its freaky. Whats the old saying..."Talk to long to a donkey, and the donkey talks back to you." ~ Nietzsche's brother, probably.

1 hour ago, ShadySands said:

I'm also not seeing how being in office for 30 to 60 years has any innate advantages.

Experience is valuable.