4 ms·

Ok, got it, you want Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell running things forever. It's a bold strategy, let's see how it works out for you.

Analemma_ 10y ago
Holy Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, Batman!
- general_ai 10y ago
  You just don't hate those two particular geezers enough. One ran the Democratic Party into the ground (and got rewarded for it with another term as the leader of House Democrats), and another makes Emperor Palpatine look like Mother Theresa. One is 76 years old, another is 74. They should long have retired if they had any decency whatsoever. Anything that shows them where the exit door is will receive my enthusiastic support.
  - cmurf 10y ago
    That's fine but what does it say about their constituents? First it's a handful voting for each in their respective primaries; second a substantial number of eligible voters who do not care enough to participate in that primary. And then more than half of the eligible voters who don't care enough to participate in the general election. So why disable the ability of those willing to participate to re-elect the person they want?
    - general_ai 10y ago
      It says that their constituents don't really give a shit about the finer points of things. It also doesn't help that the longer the congress critter stays in congress, the more power they seem to amass, Frank Underwood style. So after 15-20 years they bring in a ton of pork barrel cash to their district, and ensure indefinite reelection until they keel over and die. That's might seem like a good deal for that district, but it's, IMO, not a good deal for the country as a whole. This is similar to how most eligible voters don't give a shit about electing the president. If Obama could run indefinitely, assuming he managed to not screw up really badly, it'd be a piece of cake for him to get re-elected in perpetuity a-la Putin, simply because it's much easier for the incumbent to win (even goddamn Dubya won!), and he'd be able to adjust the laws to his liking with the support of his party in Congress when they have the majority.

Analemma_ 10y ago

Holy Fallacy of the Excluded Middle, Batman!

general_ai 10y ago
You just don't hate those two particular geezers enough. One ran the Democratic Party into the ground (and got rewarded for it with another term as the leader of House Democrats), and another makes Emperor Palpatine look like Mother Theresa. One is 76 years old, another is 74. They should long have retired if they had any decency whatsoever. Anything that shows them where the exit door is will receive my enthusiastic support.
- cmurf 10y ago
  That's fine but what does it say about their constituents? First it's a handful voting for each in their respective primaries; second a substantial number of eligible voters who do not care enough to participate in that primary. And then more than half of the eligible voters who don't care enough to participate in the general election. So why disable the ability of those willing to participate to re-elect the person they want?
  - general_ai 10y ago
    It says that their constituents don't really give a shit about the finer points of things. It also doesn't help that the longer the congress critter stays in congress, the more power they seem to amass, Frank Underwood style. So after 15-20 years they bring in a ton of pork barrel cash to their district, and ensure indefinite reelection until they keel over and die. That's might seem like a good deal for that district, but it's, IMO, not a good deal for the country as a whole. This is similar to how most eligible voters don't give a shit about electing the president. If Obama could run indefinitely, assuming he managed to not screw up really badly, it'd be a piece of cake for him to get re-elected in perpetuity a-la Putin, simply because it's much easier for the incumbent to win (even goddamn Dubya won!), and he'd be able to adjust the laws to his liking with the support of his party in Congress when they have the majority.