4 ms·
I see, so basically people are greedy. Yet under that same predicate, wouldn’t the same greedy senator be worse in-perpetuity?
by asimpletune 5y ago
I see, so basically people are greedy. Yet under that same predicate, wouldn’t the same greedy senator be worse in-perpetuity?
- syki 5y agoNeither worse nor better. Just different form of corruption. Term limits is not a good way to fight corruption. The Democrats held the House of Representatives for something like 40 years straight until 1994. You had famous scandals involving entrenched Democratic Congressmen. In 1994 Republicans made term limits a rallying point and they took over the House. Both parties have since jostled for control of the House. But when Republicans had the power they did not impose term limits. It’s just a rallying point and will do nothing to stop corruption. There may be good reasons for term limits but anti-corruption isn’t one of them.