(January 2, 2021 at 11:38 am)Fireball Wrote:

(January 2, 2021 at 1:44 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason.    Anonymous

Mark Twain said it. One wise cat, right there.

He was.

But - the Center for Mark Twain Studies say it is not in any of his writings..

I - like you -grew up thinking that he DID say it.

It certainly sounds like something he would say....

Perhaps he penned it on an outhouse wall...

(January 2, 2021 at 6:17 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(January 2, 2021 at 11:38 am)Fireball Wrote: Mark Twain said it. One wise cat, right there.

He was.

But - the Center for Mark Twain Studies say it is not in any of his writings..

I - like you -grew up thinking that he DID say it.

It certainly sounds like something he would say....

Perhaps he penned it on an outhouse wall...

Though I haven’t researched it, it’s a fair bet that Twain has more misattributed quotes than anyone.

Boru

(January 2, 2021 at 7:08 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(January 2, 2021 at 6:17 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: He was.

But - the Center for Mark Twain Studies say it is not in any of his writings..

I - like you -grew up thinking that he DID say it.

It certainly sounds like something he would say....

Perhaps he penned it on an outhouse wall...

Though I haven’t researched it, it’s a fair bet that Twain has more misattributed quotes than anyone.

Boru

Betcha he's in a close race with George Carlin.....


.....

2 great cynical minds....

My kinda people.

I invite you all to return to the halcyon days of the innocence of our republic, when the person with the most votes became president, and the second most votes won you the vice-presidency. Imagine if T.rump was due to be the next Vice President of the United States.

Luckily, the Twelve Amendment changed that.

"Para 1. The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate."

Continues on site above.

(January 2, 2021 at 3:27 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(January 2, 2021 at 2:59 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: Yeah, that makes sense to me.  
Just to clarify, and I'm sorry for being hyper fixated here...
The issue then isn't really with age or term, we could take your example and just replace age with term and it's still true.
The real issue you are bringing up is with cognitive decline.  And that, to me makes sense.
Would you agree that there are probably better ways to address cognitive decline in Congress than with term or age limits?
Would you agree that age will correlate much more strongly with cognitive decline than terms served?

RBG I think is a good counter point to age limits.

I'm not as familiar with the arguments for term limiting SCOTUS at this point.  I've been super fixated on the arguments for Congress.
I am sure there is both a lot of overlap, and quite a few differences to keep in mind when considering term limits for different branches and levels of government.

I don't think there is a way to prevent someone in office from going through cognitive decline.  We really can't govern that.  Any number of things could cause actual or perceived decline.  And many of the causes can't be predicted...it's not all about age.

Term limits make sense to me.  The good ole boy network needs to be broken up a bit.  Some of the long timers are there because of the "we've always done it this way" mentality.  

As for congress...I think a couple of consecutive terms would be enough but I am not opposed to them running again after a period of time.

SCOTUS lifelong terms are part of the "we've always done it this way" mentality.  I think a decade would be a good end time.  That could lend itself to consistency without stagnancy.

So as far as the cognitive decline stuff...That seems reasonable to me.  We can do things like basic cognitive tests that check for things like serious mental decline...but I can appreciate that it's difficult.  That's all a bit tangential to this topic anyway but still interesting!

When I here "Term limits make sense to me" it begs the question "Why"...which it looks like you expanded on in the next few sentences.
What benefit do we gain by forcibly ousting experienced politicians?  It seems like, and I am sorry if I am putting words in your mouth here, that you are grasping at maybe an idea of "New politicians have fresh ideas" and new ideas and perspectives can be a good thing?  Let me know if I missed the mark.

(January 2, 2021 at 8:06 pm)Aristocatt Wrote:

(January 2, 2021 at 3:27 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: I don't think there is a way to prevent someone in office from going through cognitive decline.  We really can't govern that.  Any number of things could cause actual or perceived decline.  And many of the causes can't be predicted...it's not all about age.

Term limits make sense to me.  The good ole boy network needs to be broken up a bit.  Some of the long timers are there because of the "we've always done it this way" mentality.  

As for congress...I think a couple of consecutive terms would be enough but I am not opposed to them running again after a period of time.

SCOTUS lifelong terms are part of the "we've always done it this way" mentality.  I think a decade would be a good end time.  That could lend itself to consistency without stagnancy.

So as far as the cognitive decline stuff...That seems reasonable to me.  We can do things like basic cognitive tests that check for things like serious mental decline...but I can appreciate that it's difficult.  That's all a bit tangential to this topic anyway but still interesting!

When I here "Term limits make sense to me" it begs the question "Why"...which it looks like you expanded on in the next few sentences.
What benefit do we gain by forcibly ousting experienced politicians?  It seems like, and I am sorry if I am putting words in your mouth here, that you are grasping at maybe an idea of "New politicians have fresh ideas" and new ideas and perspectives can be a good thing?  Let me know if I missed the mark.

There is an element of "new blood" in my way of thinking.  Seems some of these long time politicians are simply professional politicians and tend to forget that their job is to represent their constituents.  

There is work to be done to break up the groups of politicians who band together like the ones now who plan to disrupt the finalizing of the electoral vote.  They are from all over the country so they aren't representing the same people.  It's a good ole boy group working together to support their grand poobah.  They are so far from working toward what's best for the people of this country and are showing their allegiance instead to Trump and the MAGA crowd.

(January 1, 2021 at 11:41 pm)HappySkeptic Wrote: I think that Senate term limits are more important than House term limits.

Senators rarely get voted out.  That by itself is a problem.  Either senators are just universally loved, or else the system gives them enormous advantages in re-election.  If the second, that can entrench corruption.

Good point. House members are voted on every 2 years. So there is in reality a higher turnover rate in the House than people think. 

But the Senate is far harder because districts are harder to flip with career Senators.  Gerrymandering has a lot to do with them being in office for so long. 

But if we are switching out everyone in congress every 5 seconds you'd could still end up with gridlock. So while I am for term limits, not sure how short they should be. I could go with 12 years as a limit. I also think SCOTUS should be limited to 12 years too. 

Mitch McConnell has to be the biggest argument for term limits. He has been obstructing everything he doesn't like that Democrats pass in the House since 08 when Obama became President. Not 100% no, but certainly way too many bills have died on his desk.

Quote:But the Senate is far harder because districts are harder to flip with career Senators.  Gerrymandering has a lot to do with them being in office for so long. 

Districts and gerrymandering don’t apply to Senators.

Boru

(January 2, 2021 at 8:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:But the Senate is far harder because districts are harder to flip with career Senators.  Gerrymandering has a lot to do with them being in office for so long. 

Districts and gerrymandering don’t apply to Senators.

Boru

You mean state borders aren't ever-changing?  

Damn - that would keep things interesting.

(January 2, 2021 at 8:53 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:

(January 2, 2021 at 8:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Districts and gerrymandering don’t apply to Senators.

Boru

You mean state borders aren't ever-changing?  

Damn - that would keep things interesting.

Might make for some interesting state names as well. Tennetucky, South Georgalina.

Boru