What is the problem with American politics?

[Ifreann]

Baby Boomers, the Millenial Generation, and Congress.

And our outdated constitution.

So basically the entire population of the country?

And the laws that define the political system. Quite the problem.

[Farnhamia]

So basically the entire population of the country?

And the laws that define the political system. Quite the problem.

Indeed. One hardly knows where to begin. Do we disenfranchise everyone and then rewrite the Constitution or the other way 'round? Or do we simply pack it in with a "Nice try, chaps!" and all move elsewhere? Dear me.

[Luveria]

And the laws that define the political system. Quite the problem.

Indeed. One hardly knows where to begin. Do we disenfranchise everyone and then rewrite the Constitution or the other way 'round? Or do we simply pack it in with a "Nice try, chaps!" and all move elsewhere? Dear me.

Abolishing term limits would be a good start.

[Shilya]

Indeed. One hardly knows where to begin. Do we disenfranchise everyone and then rewrite the Constitution or the other way 'round? Or do we simply pack it in with a "Nice try, chaps!" and all move elsewhere? Dear me.

Abolishing term limits would be a good start.

Dear Lord, you don't know what you say. That breeds a lot of bad things. See my other post about incumbents viewtopic.php?p=17735063#p17735063 here for details why many of the presidents, even bad ones, would outlive their two terms.

We had a chancellor for a whopping 16 years. In that time, his party had gone corrupt like hell, he had botchered the unification of the country and sold it out. Even after the horrible reunifications it took 8 years for the people to realize how much they had been fucked over, and it was only possible to topple him with the rather left votes from the new states.

Term limits promote change and progress and fight the stabilization of corrupt officials, and they give challengers and new candidate a fair chance every two terms.

[Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini]

AIPAC is the biggest problem, in my opinion.

[Farnhamia]

Abolishing term limits would be a good start.

Dear Lord, you don't know what you say. That breeds a lot of bad things. See my other post about incumbents viewtopic.php?p=17735063#p17735063 here for details why many of the presidents, even bad ones, would outlive their two terms.

We had a chancellor for a whopping 16 years. In that time, his party had gone corrupt like hell, he had botchered the unification of the country and sold it out. Even after the horrible reunifications it took 8 years for the people to realize how much they had been fucked over, and it was only possible to topple him with the rather left votes from the new states.

Term limits promote change and progress and fight the stabilization of corrupt officials, and they give challengers and new candidate a fair chance every two terms.

Presidential term limits in the US were basically a "fuck you" to the Roosevelt years from the Republicans. I have less problem with that than with proposed term limits for Congress. I don't want the country run by amateurs, no matter how altruistic they are. What you get with term-limited legislatures are single-issue representatives who feel no obligation to work with their colleagues because they no that they won't be around long enough for that to matter. All they want is to flog their pet issue and maybe hustle some bills through. If you want incumbents defeated then find good candidates and work as hard as you can. No one said it would be easy. Term limits are the lazy person's solution to political problems.

[Shilya]

Presidential term limits in the US were basically a "fuck you" to the Roosevelt years from the Republicans. I have less problem with that than with proposed term limits for Congress. I don't want the country run by amateurs, no matter how altruistic they are. What you get with term-limited legislatures are single-issue representatives who feel no obligation to work with their colleagues because they no that they won't be around long enough for that to matter. All they want is to flog their pet issue and maybe hustle some bills through.

Yes, term limits for legislature are a different matter. I see the disadvantages here outweighing the potential advantages. But that would be installing more term limits, which the argument wasn't about - it was about abolishing the existing ones for the president.

If you want incumbents defeated then find good candidates and work as hard as you can. No one said it would be easy. Term limits are the lazy person's solution to political problems.

The problem is that the presidential election is a huge media event and the best candidate doesn't necessarily win simply due to the force of opinion forming. A good candidate will always have an advantage, term limits or not, but history doesn't lie - incumbents are favoured and people don't like change. This can lead to a better candidate not succeeding.
A lazy solution doesn't have to be bad.

[Farnhamia]

Presidential term limits in the US were basically a "fuck you" to the Roosevelt years from the Republicans. I have less problem with that than with proposed term limits for Congress. I don't want the country run by amateurs, no matter how altruistic they are. What you get with term-limited legislatures are single-issue representatives who feel no obligation to work with their colleagues because they no that they won't be around long enough for that to matter. All they want is to flog their pet issue and maybe hustle some bills through.

Yes, term limits for legislature are a different matter. I see the disadvantages here outweighing the potential advantages. But that would be installing more term limits, which the argument wasn't about - it was about abolishing the existing ones for the president.

If you want incumbents defeated then find good candidates and work as hard as you can. No one said it would be easy. Term limits are the lazy person's solution to political problems.

The problem is that the presidential election is a huge media event and the best candidate doesn't necessarily win simply due to the force of opinion forming. A good candidate will always have an advantage, term limits or not, but history doesn't lie - incumbents are favoured and people don't like change. This can lead to a better candidate not succeeding.
A lazy solution doesn't have to be bad.

There's a difference between "I can't be bothered to work to unseat an incumbent so I want the process rigged so I don't have to" and "We have a huge problem with corruption and people rigging elections in order to stay in office so we need legal limits on how many terms you can serve." Of course, the second one may not be solvable by term limits.

[Nervium]

The big tent politics of both parties comes to mind, corporate lobbying and nepotism, God in the goverment (well, it's kinda dangerous), some other things, Ron Paul, Tea Party.

[Central Kadigan]

The whole thing is a mess; awash in truckloads of undisclosed moneys, secret backroom deals, and huge personal egos.

It would be a much shorter thread is you asked “What isn’t the problem with American politcis?”

[Farnhamia]

The whole thing is a mess; awash in truckloads of undisclosed moneys, secret backroom deals, and huge personal egos.

It would be a much shorter thread is you asked “What isn’t the problem with American politcis?”

So if I asked you for specifics you'd just say the problems are undisclosed and secret? That doesn't exactly help and makes me wonder how undisclosed and secret they are if you know about them. See the problem?

[Duvniask]

The whole thing is a mess; awash in truckloads of undisclosed moneys, secret backroom deals, and huge personal egos.

It would be a much shorter thread is you asked “What isn’t the problem with American politcis?”

The fact, that it could be a lot worse, comes to mind, for which there are actually a lot of reasons. Compare the United States to North Korea, for example.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Abolishing term limits would be a good start.

Dear Lord, you don't know what you say. That breeds a lot of bad things. See my other post about incumbents viewtopic.php?p=17735063#p17735063 here for details why many of the presidents, even bad ones, would outlive their two terms.

We had a chancellor for a whopping 16 years. In that time, his party had gone corrupt like hell, he had botchered the unification of the country and sold it out. Even after the horrible reunifications it took 8 years for the people to realize how much they had been fucked over, and it was only possible to topple him with the rather left votes from the new states.

Term limits promote change and progress and fight the stabilization of corrupt officials, and they give challengers and new candidate a fair chance every two terms.

Stopping popular politicians from running for Presidency more than twice is simply stupid. If there's corruption, the simple solution is to vote that person out, not force them out.

[Len Hyet]

Dear Lord, you don't know what you say. That breeds a lot of bad things. See my other post about incumbents viewtopic.php?p=17735063#p17735063 here for details why many of the presidents, even bad ones, would outlive their two terms.

We had a chancellor for a whopping 16 years. In that time, his party had gone corrupt like hell, he had botchered the unification of the country and sold it out. Even after the horrible reunifications it took 8 years for the people to realize how much they had been fucked over, and it was only possible to topple him with the rather left votes from the new states.

Term limits promote change and progress and fight the stabilization of corrupt officials, and they give challengers and new candidate a fair chance every two terms.

Stopping popular politicians from running for Presidency more than twice is simply stupid. If there's corruption, the simple solution is to vote that person out, not force them out.

You do understand what corruption means right? If Politician A is corrupt, and rigs the vote, then Politician A will never be voted out of office. I think term limits aren't restrictive enough. One six year term for Presidents. One six year term for Senators and Representatives, all elections taking place in the same year. That way the President, House, and Senate are forced to work together, because they will not get another chance.

[Priory Academy USSR]

Stopping popular politicians from running for Presidency more than twice is simply stupid. If there's corruption, the simple solution is to vote that person out, not force them out.

You do understand what corruption means right? If Politician A is corrupt, and rigs the vote, then Politician A will never be voted out of office. I think term limits aren't restrictive enough. One six year term for Presidents. One six year term for Senators and Representatives, all elections taking place in the same year. That way the President, House, and Senate are forced to work together, because they will not get another chance.

If there's evidence that the President is corrupt, then Congress can call to impeach him/her.

[Len Hyet]

You do understand what corruption means right? If Politician A is corrupt, and rigs the vote, then Politician A will never be voted out of office. I think term limits aren't restrictive enough. One six year term for Presidents. One six year term for Senators and Representatives, all elections taking place in the same year. That way the President, House, and Senate are forced to work together, because they will not get another chance.

If there's evidence that the President is corrupt, then Congress can call to impeach him/her.

Corruption yields more Corruption. If the President is corrupt, all he needs is one friend in Congress to derail any attempt to impeach him.

[Priory Academy USSR]

If there's evidence that the President is corrupt, then Congress can call to impeach him/her.

Corruption yields more Corruption. If the President is corrupt, all he needs is one friend in Congress to derail any attempt to impeach him.

Then that's a problem with the impeachment system, which can be fixed without infringing on democratic rights of the people like term limits.

[Farnhamia]

If there's evidence that the President is corrupt, then Congress can call to impeach him/her.

Corruption yields more Corruption. If the President is corrupt, all he needs is one friend in Congress to derail any attempt to impeach him.

How's that? The House of Representatives brings the impeachment charges and the Senate tries the case with the Chief Justice presiding. Neither chamber requires unanimity to perform their tasks, nor do Senate filibuster rules apply to impeachment trials, as far as I know.

[Liechenstein]

I think one of the main problems with the current United States government is that it is a far cry of what it was and suppose to be originally. The presidency over time has grown increasingly powerful being one example. Another being Senators which were suppose to be elected to the Senate by the State to balance the popularly elected House of Representatives are now also popularly elected. The government is involved in far more activities than it had been in the past in the Pre-FDR Era of the presidency. These are just a few problems that have essentially emerged over the "evolution" of the country that can be seen to have had negative effects over time. Also as a fun fact I figure I would throw in how the Supreme Courts decisions actually aren't binding in reality and can be ignored (Lincoln ignored the Supreme Courts decision stating he needed sufficient evidence to arrest people under the suspension of Habeas Corpus). Thank you all for reading this I just figured I would throw in what I see as the major problems as a history major that have negatively effected our country.

[The Scientific States]

Apathy, corruption, partisan bickering etc.

[Ifreann]

I think one of the main problems with the current United States government is that it is a far cry of what it was and suppose to be originally.

This assumes that what the US government was originally supposed to be is good, or at least better.

[Calimera II]

Campaign Finance Legislation: Congressmen spend more time on raising money than working for the US people.

[Liechenstein]

I think one of the main problems with the current United States government is that it is a far cry of what it was and suppose to be originally.

This assumes that what the US government was originally supposed to be is good, or at least better.

Well I am actually bringing up past history on how it was suppose to work and how it has changed and that these changes were not originally planned in the conception of the government and its operation. Thus these changes could have a negative impact on politics and general government operation over time. I am not saying it is suppose to be "good" or perhaps "better" I am merely implying that part of the current problem could easily be linked to the changes.

[Liechenstein]

Campaign Finance Legislation: Congressmen spend more time on raising money than working for the US people.

A arguable but nonetheless interesting point and that is one of the arguments some have made to return Senate elections to State legislators as they were originally.

[Farnhamia]

Campaign Finance Legislation: Congressmen spend more time on raising money than working for the US people.

A arguable but nonetheless interesting point and that is one of the arguments some have made to return Senate elections to State legislators as they were originally.

Then you'd complain about the corrupt state legislatures electing Senators.