I’ve noticed the trend is that even if everything you say is true, if you appear against something people think they want, you get downvotes. So in this case they are just saying they want term limits anyway. Ok. I mean I do to. I know it doesn’t solve the problems, but personally I do think it helps some.
But I am also for all the other things that really do solve the problems, they are just much less likely to be possible.
That makes sense, I suppose. It also is why using the downvote for opinion instead of if it’s a relevant post muddles the effect. There’s no middle vote of, “sort of agree, but with conditions” arrow. Which is why adding comments, like you and BLHW did, is better than any arrow vote. Thanks for that.
I disagree on term limits. I do think too many in Congress are past their prime, maybe not just in age but in generational thinking of what’s needed NOW. New blood, new ideas are needed. But for the few that can adapt with the needs of society, for them to be kicked out because of age or time in office solely because of a rule and not because of their abilities would be a loss. Granted, it’s a few, but that’s a few we can’t afford to lose. If we can use the built in term limits of an election to remove the right ones, that’s far better than a blanket law.
What would really be helpful too is a way to do a vote of no confidence. Analogy: If you’re doing a poor job at work, the boss isn’t going to wait until next hiring session to decide what to do with you, he lets you know first and then gets rid of the problem if there’s no change.
Well sure, term limits are a blunt instrument. And there are always exceptions. But I just think the overall will be a net positive.
If they are still mentally solid, they can take positions in the administration or for their state government. Those who are able and willing can always find a way to contribute.
I’ve noticed the trend is that even if everything you say is true, if you appear against something people think they want, you get downvotes. So in this case they are just saying they want term limits anyway. Ok. I mean I do to. I know it doesn’t solve the problems, but personally I do think it helps some. But I am also for all the other things that really do solve the problems, they are just much less likely to be possible.
That makes sense, I suppose. It also is why using the downvote for opinion instead of if it’s a relevant post muddles the effect. There’s no middle vote of, “sort of agree, but with conditions” arrow. Which is why adding comments, like you and BLHW did, is better than any arrow vote. Thanks for that.
I disagree on term limits. I do think too many in Congress are past their prime, maybe not just in age but in generational thinking of what’s needed NOW. New blood, new ideas are needed. But for the few that can adapt with the needs of society, for them to be kicked out because of age or time in office solely because of a rule and not because of their abilities would be a loss. Granted, it’s a few, but that’s a few we can’t afford to lose. If we can use the built in term limits of an election to remove the right ones, that’s far better than a blanket law.
What would really be helpful too is a way to do a vote of no confidence. Analogy: If you’re doing a poor job at work, the boss isn’t going to wait until next hiring session to decide what to do with you, he lets you know first and then gets rid of the problem if there’s no change.
Well sure, term limits are a blunt instrument. And there are always exceptions. But I just think the overall will be a net positive. If they are still mentally solid, they can take positions in the administration or for their state government. Those who are able and willing can always find a way to contribute.