Bernie Sanders doesn't support term limits for members of Congress

[Hardkill]

I remember Leo saying in the last part of his 4 part videos series on conscious politics vids that we need to have term limits for all elected government positions in the US including term limits for all members of Congress. Interestingly, it hasn't just been a number of Democratic Congressmen who have supported term limits for Congress. A number of Republican congressmen have also supported this idea. 

https://www.termlimits.com/democrats/

https://www.termlimits.com/mitch-mcconnell-signs-u-s-term-limits-pledge/

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sen-cruz-colleagues-reintroduce-constitutional-amendment-imposing-congressional-term-limits

 

Yet, Bernie Sanders does not think that that is necessary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-Iz8sh0ehM

[Raze]

Bernie is right. Term limits will just result in the congresspeople being replaced by a fresh face controlled by the same puppeteers.

[Leo Gura]

By that logic you should be against Presidential term limits too.

Term limits are important to prevent ossification of the system. Congress right now is way too old and out of touch. Some of them are literally too senile to govern, like senator Boxer, who has dimentia, yet still clings to power.

Even the Chinese have term limits in their Communist party.

Edited August 28, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

By that logic you should be against Presidential term limits too.

Term limits are important to prevent ossification of the system. Congress right now is way too old and out of touch. Some of them are literally too senile to govern, like senator Boxer, who has dimentia, yet still clings to power.

So, Bernie is wrong?!

He said that if a congressperson is still competent, honorable, and well liked by his constituency, then there should be no problem having that person be re-elected for an unlimited number of times.

Also, what about the fact that members of Congress who have been in office for many years generally have greater legislative acumen than inexperienced members of Congress, because of the great of amount experience they've had working in Congress?

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Even the Chinese have term limits in their Communist party.

The CCP has already removed the term limit for president in their country.

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, Hardkill said:

So, Bernie is wrong?!

He said that if a congressperson is still competent, honorable, and well liked by his constituency, then there should be no problem having that person be re-elected for an unlimited number of times.

This assumes a fair democracy. But in practice our democracy is corrupted by capitalist lobbiest so new candidates don't have a fair shot of winning elections and crappy old ones stick around forever as they get more corrupt.

And we have no tests for competence nor standards for honor.

Even if a President is loved, honored, and competent, term limits still apply. So why not in Congress? The logic is identical.

Quote

Also, what about the fact that members of Congress who have been in office for many years generally have greater legislative acumen than inexperienced members of Congress, because of the great of amount experience they've had working in Congress?

That's why the term limit can be set fairly high, like 10, 15, or 20 years.

Quote

The CCP has already removed the term limit for president in their country.

Well, that's cause Xi is hungry for power, and that's no good thing. Putin also skirted all the term limits. Where has that gotten us?

Edited August 28, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

This assumes a fair democracy. But in practice our democracy is corrupted by capitalist lobbiest so new candidates don't have a fair shot of winning elections and crappy old ones stick around forever as they get more corrupt.

And we have no tests for competence nor standards for honor.

Even if a President is loved, honored, and competent, term limits still apply. So why not in Congress? The logic is identical.

That's why the term limit can be set fairly high, like 10, 15, or 20 years.

I agree with all of that. That's why I think approximately 20 years would probably be the sweet spot for the term limit for every member of Congress. However, I believe that the 20 year term limit shouldn't be applied for the total amount of years you served in both chambers of Congress. For example, if you served as a member of the House of Representatives for about 20 years, then I believe that you should still be able be eligible to serve as a Senator up to about 20 years. Same with vice-versa. 

What do you think?

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Well, that's cause Xi is hungry for power, and that's no good thing. Putin also skirted all the term limits. Where has that gotten us?

I guess it's because the people don't mind having an authoritarian leader ruling their country.

 

 

Edited August 28, 2022 by Hardkill

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Hardkill said:

I guess it's because the people don't mind having an authoritarian leader ruling their country.

Oh they mind, they are just powerless to stop it.

[Hardkill]

40 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Oh they mind, they are just powerless to stop it.

But I thought that the people of China don't want a democracy because most of the citizens of China are primarily around Stage Blue, don't believe in democracy, and wouldn't be ready for it. You've talked before about how the kind of leaders in power and the kind of government a country has is generally a reflection of what level of societal development most of the country's citizens are at, correct?

Otherwise, the majority of the laymen and enough of the elite in China would already be revolting against the CCP and establish a new more evolved kind of government with more evolved laws.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by Hardkill

[Razard86]

The people en masse have always had power, they just give it away. As long as people are divided and fearful they are easy to rule. Its a sad truth that has played out for centuries in human history and is the reason why bloody revolutions end up taking place when the people get tired and fed up and don't care if they die and just want things to change at all costs.

We have read this type of history play out all across the world and time immemorial and for some reason no matter what government we construct we keep having this issue where the power tilts to the top and the people just sit around and complain like they have no ability to stop it.

This is perhaps the most powerful tool in the hands of the people and it has never been used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Its rarely even discussed, not even in Political Science Classes. 

We don't just need term limits, we need more political awareness. Term limits are just the icing, if the people are asleep on political matters you cannot have a democracy. You just have something that pretends to be a democracy.

[Hardkill]

45 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

The people en masse have always had power, they just give it away. As long as people are divided and fearful they are easy to rule. Its a sad truth that has played out for centuries in human history and is the reason why bloody revolutions end up taking place when the people get tired and fed up and don't care if they die and just want things to change at all costs.

We have read this type of history play out all across the world and time immemorial and for some reason no matter what government we construct we keep having this issue where the power tilts to the top and the people just sit around and complain like they have no ability to stop it.

This is perhaps the most powerful tool in the hands of the people and it has never been used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Its rarely even discussed, not even in Political Science Classes. 

We don't just need term limits, we need more political awareness. Term limits are just the icing, if the people are asleep on political matters you cannot have a democracy. You just have something that pretends to be a democracy.

You're right. We definitely need make a massive, powerful awareness campaign throughout the entire country on the fundamentals problems with our entire government.

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, Hardkill said:

But I thought that the people of China don't want a democracy because most of the citizens of China are primarily around Stage Blue, don't believe in democracy, and wouldn't be ready for it. You've talked before about how the kind of leaders in power and the kind of government a country has is generally a reflection of what level of societal development most of the country's citizens are at, correct?

Otherwise, the majority of the laymen and enough of the elite in China would already be revolting against the CCP and establish a new more evolved kind of government with more evolved laws.

People will endure a lot of abuse before they stage a revolt.

China is doing fine for itself as of now. But eventually the people will evolve and demand more equality and more representation.

Overthrowing the CCP is no small feat. I don't see it happening any time soon.

Edited August 29, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Hardkill]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

People will endure a lot of abuse before they stage a revolt.

China is doing fine for itself as of now. But eventually the people will evolve and demand more equality and more representation.

Overthrowing the CCP is no small feat. I don't see it happening any time soon.

But what I don’t totally get is why haven’t the people of China evolved enough to demand more rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press? Americans in the mid to late 19th century had rights like freedom of press and freedom of speech but didn’t have anywhere near the level of technology, infrastructure, and overall level of education that China has had in recent times. 

[DocWatts]

On 8/28/2022 at 6:04 PM, Hardkill said:

I agree with all of that. That's why I think approximately 20 years would probably be the sweet spot for the term limit for every member of Congress. 

I'll second this. 20 years seems to strike a good balance between the value of having experienced and knowledge legislators, and nudging Congress to be more age representative of the rest of the country (median age in the US is 38 years old).

That said, term limits for legislatures is secondary in importance to having term limits for the Supreme Court, and the difference in importance is not even close.

Edited August 30, 2022 by DocWatts

[SOUL]

I think you missed the point Bernie was making, term limits are not the issue, it's the corruption that's the issue. Fresh faced newly elected politicians can be equally corrupted as ones that have been there for decades so are presumed to have more 'power'.

In fact, new representatives that know they will be out again after two or three terms because of limits are more easily corrupted because they know they will be rewarded in the private sector after they leave office if they do the bidding of the money interests.

It already happens with revolving door politics of lobbying and corporate board positions being handed to naturally defeated representatives. Term limits actually benefit the private wealth interests just as much as not having them, it makes no real difference to them either way.

Let's not forget the Presidential term limits were instituted because a President was too popular with the people because he created policies that helped the masses, the poor and hard working class that actually gave rise to the most cherished 'American dream' economic era of the 1950s.

So, the capitalists were upset they couldn't exploit the people as cruelly as they had been, they could only exploit them moderately or move their cruelty internationally. Ever since the 70s they have been working hard to remove all that progress and now we again live in a corporate hellscape.

Or you could misinterpret Sanders' point so criticize him for an imagined binary of political positions, that's probably easier than actually understanding the meta-point he is making about the corrupting influence of money in politics.

[Razard86]

On 8/28/2022 at 11:18 PM, Hardkill said:

You're right. We definitely need make a massive, powerful awareness campaign throughout the entire country on the fundamentals problems with our entire government.

People have tried, TYT Otherwise known as the Young Turks did a whole campaign years ago to get the needed signatures for it and they made some progress and after awhile I haven't heard much since then. 

https://wolf-pac.com/

Here is the website they started awhile back, surprised its still up. Its incredible they still haven't given up.

I stopped watching TYT years ago because of a bias Cenk had about a certain criminal case and how he covered it.  But they are a good liberal outlet overall just not for me anymore. 

[Hardkill]

1 hour ago, Razard86 said:

People have tried, TYT Otherwise known as the Young Turks did a whole campaign years ago to get the needed signatures for it and they made some progress and after awhile I haven't heard much since then. 

https://wolf-pac.com/

Here is the website they started awhile back, surprised its still up. Its incredible they still haven't given up.

I stopped watching TYT years ago because of a bias Cenk had about a certain criminal case and how he covered it.  But they are a good liberal outlet overall just not for me anymore. 

I am also surprised that they haven't given up considering how polarized the entire country has gotten and will continue to be for perhaps a number of decades.

I used to find TYT educational in many ways with regard to what really needs to change in our society. They also used to be more light-hearted and fun to watch. Now, I think they are getting too crazy. Since about the beginning of last year, they've been sounding more and more like highly irritable left-wing conspiracy theorists. I agree with Leo that TYT has become too populist, too anti-mainstream, and too impractical.

 

 

Edited September 1, 2022 by Hardkill