2020 Democratic presidential primary

i missed this -- when did he say this?

i think it's surreal that any candidate would make this promise; giving up the advantage of running as an incumbent is crazy

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, December 11, 2019 1:53 PM (two hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

Bernie didn't promise anything, he just refused to answer the question of whether he would serve one or two terms. From what I've seen he tends to brush off these sort of speculative questions with a "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" sort of response. (I think he's usually in the right when he does.)

term limits are a stupid idea, that's what elections are for. you want to limit lobbyist influence, outlaw lobbyists.

You’re a stupid idea! Ideally congress wld be service-oriented, comprised of highly compensated ppl from all walks of life who after 6 or whatever yrs are by law guaranteed a return to whatever jobs/positions they left.

politicians should be chosen by lottery

^better yet

you want to limit lobbyist influence, outlaw lobbyists

it's always the lobbyist's fault that the elected officials do whatever the lobby says

^better yet

although I understand the sentiment, uh, nope. I agree that it might be a pretty good system in a town of, say, 2000 people. but if we're talking about the USA, then we're talking 330 million people, a budget of trillions, the world's biggest economy, and a nuclear arsenal to manage.

If every kind of expertise is rigorously eliminated from the legislative body the result would be to surrender all governance to the executive branch, which can retain the necessary expertise to exert complete control. Or, if the legislative lottery winners got testy and grabbed at the controls, they'd be flying blind. No, thanks.

^^^

expertise and experience in legislative matters are good things, not to be tossed away lightly

xxp I was kidding, but representation wld def be improved by more “representative” makeup.

that's a fine goal. publicly finance elections = problem solved.

Term limits are worthless and undemocratic. How does it undermine lobbyist influence to ensure that someone is cycled out to the private sector in a short amount of time?

yeah, if anything it just increases lobbyist leverage because then the lobbyists are the only people who are in governance across multiple terms - new guy shows up, lobbyist takes him by the arm: "here, let me show you how this place runs..."

absolutely hate that I've been having to make this argument for like the past 30 years

The idea is that if know you are not beholden to lobbyists for financing your reelection you are more likely to legislate with your conscience and according to constituents’ wishes.

that's a fine goal. publicly finance elections = problem solved.

Instead you're beholden to that lobbyist taking you on trips, hiring you after you term out or just hiring your dirtbag son-in-law now. No difference.

And unless you're one and done-ing the House every two years, they're still going to need campaign financing a few times.

Influence peddling doesn't require campaign money - see also: Joe Manchin's daughter, Hunter Biden, the Trump clan, etc..

legislate with your conscience and according to constituents’ wishes

...which are not the same thing and are often in direct opposition

I don’t understand why more politicians don’t just take lobbyists’ money and then do nothing for them

for real?

I’m half joking

lol

lol crut

_legislate with your conscience and according to constituents’ wishes_

...which are not the same thing and are often in direct opposition

Agreed this is far more critical than term limits

yep

i feel like we'd lose way more than we'd gain with term limits for congress -- i'd hate to lose someone like AOC after a couple of terms.

totally different issue but term limits for the supreme court seem justifiable to me.

That’s totally different, they aren’t elected.

Also FDR tried that (well ok it was an age limit)

We don't need term limits for the Supreme Court, we just need terms. 12 years and out you go IMO.

If somehow the new President at that point wants to renominate you for another term and now you have to get reconfirmed with a judicial record for everyone to go over, cool.

are we really arguing for term limits lol

The supposed rationale behind lifetime appointments was to insulate seated justices from political considerations. One non-renewable term of judicial tenure would serve the same purpose. It would also neutralize the strategy of appointing justices at ever-younger ages as a means to prolong their tenure for up to four decades.

Making justices step down after a term of sixteen or twenty years should be politically neutral, since no one can predict the future anywhere near that far in advance, but I'm pretty sure the Republicans would resist it doggedly; as the party which has recently profited the most from the current system, they'd perceive it as a loss.

We don't need term limits for the Supreme Court, we just need terms. 12 years and out you go IMO.

― Greta Van Show Feets BB (milo z), Wednesday, December 11, 2019 9:25 PM (eight minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

18 years and cycle out one justice every 2 years imo

Pete Buttigeig has big plans of his own to fix the Supreme Court I hear. Him being a presidential contender and all, his plan is probably better than ours, so maybe we should just look to him for guidance on this.

What the fuck happened here

Today in "fuck Pete Buttigeig":

New tidbit in this story with @AliceOllstein: Pete Buttigieg has poured more than $1.5 million into airing TV ads in Iowa criticizing Medicare for All and free college. https://t.co/MiuwDZ60UY

— Holly Otterbein (@hollyotterbein) December 12, 2019

I swear to god he's a psyop funded by every other campaign to make them look less horrible by contrast

lol

oh god sftu already

Democratic White House hopeful Pete Buttigieg put his own twist on Lizzo's hit "Truth Hurts" while appearing on the same morning show as the famed singer, saying he's "100 percent that nominee."

Like I said.

ya ya yeh

Mayor Pete's all in on embracing the stern, but fair, wisdom of Mr. Potter of Bedford Falls.

The full exchange:

I heard you hadn't read anything that caused you physical pain recently pic.twitter.com/96JVROvTIP

— whole genius (@jaubert_moniker) December 12, 2019

Unless he was fed that line (which I guess it'd be idotic to bet against), that's the first thing he's ever said that made me think he might actually be gay.

from the people who brought you “Pokémon Go to the Polls”

Nominees pointing out that a DNA test does not matter into determining Nominee ancestry

something something warren something something

actually the test said 100% a snitch

Biden and Buttigieg would nominate Federalist Society-approved hacks to the SCOTUS just to appease a Republican Senate and then brag about how they got stuff done by working with both sides. They aren’t running against the GOP in any meaningful way at all, they’re just running against Trump and Bernie.

if it came down to it, would anyone on this thread vote for buttigieg over biden in a primary?