There is no Republican Civil War. It is fully the Party of Trump.

Lanz has Memento disease, and keeps rebooting back to 2006.
He regurgitates the same old shit he was back then.
"Term limits!"
"Tort reform!"
"Tax cuts!".
"Term limits!"
"Tort reform!"
"Tax cuts!".

Give me the source video and I can play around with it.

So what? All three are still needed.

Elaborate.

What don’t you understand? We still need tax cuts, tort reform and term limits.

If that's what you believe, the question repeatedly posed to @Tererun (which she can't answer) and which might be posed to @Lanzman if he'd stop looping for a post or two is: What are you malcontents doing about it? Yanno, out there in the RW instead of whining on message boards.

I narrowly avoided having to get a new laptop because I wasn't drinking when I read this.

Term limits don't fix anything, tax cuts don't either, and tort reform is code for "make it easier for corporations to hurt people without facing any consequences."

That all three are needed (for argument's sake) doesn't make any of them necessarily the answer to a given problem.

Do you have a sense of how term limits could possibly help Republicans not worship at the altar of Trump?

Sidebar to the term limits conversation, Chuck Grassley, age 87, announced he's considering running again. I'd like the "OMFG, Bernie's too old; Biden's too old!!!!" crowd to weigh in on this, or do Republicans get a pass because Reasons?

Term limits prevent lifetime Congresscritters, which means actual new ideas coming in instead of rehashed and relabeled failed policies from forty years ago. And if it's good enough for the President, it's good enough for the critters. Also, some folks here on Wordforge have floated the idea of term limits for SCOTUS Justices. Good for the goose, good for the gander.

Elaborate as to why and what it would look like. Those are just topics, with a spectrum of possible options in each.

Again, that term limits are generally good (for argument's sake) does not translate to them being a solution for everything.

In this particular case, it seems like the most term limits would do is make it so that instead of the likes of Mitch McConnell and others trying to maneuver a middle course where they do not antagonize Trump, the likes of Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz openly supporting him and a handful of people like Mitt Romney actually criticizing him, there would be either newbs playing the role of Mitch McConnell, more of the ilk of Marjorie Taylor Greenes who are able to win office on the backs of openly supporting Trump. Many if not all the critics would likely either not be willing to speak out because they would become more vulnerable through term limits or would likely get voted out by candidates from the right.

Unless they're from AOC, in which case "Cooommiiieee whooooore!!! Noooooo!!!! Shutupshutupshutupshuuuutuuuuupp!!! ".

If ppl got off their asses to vote--or hell, even if we had mandatory voting--career politicians wouldn't be less of a thing.

Maybe @Bailey can tell us how the voting laws in 'Stralya affect political longevity.

I think we're missing an important point here. There's a new party evolving on WF that's neither Republican, Democratic, libertarian, communist, or any other flavor that its participants choose to make up as their views are repeatedly challenged.

Imagine a mashup of @Tererun, @Amaris, @The Ghost of Crazy Horse, and @Lanzman. The mind boggles.

It is the nogaramet party.

I could not resist the Simpsons reference. Bad me! Very bad me.

But that's the thing: the House isn't representing the People. It's representing moneyed interests and political hacks.

Jesus man you do that as much if not more than anyone else.

Actually, my position is that every side sucks. None of them are "better."

Which is just as likely to result in a bunch of QAnon Trumpers as it is in good ideas. I agree that the average age of politicians should be younger, but the argument you've presented here doesn't stack up.

Not quite an equal comparison, since one person holding the US Presidency for decades would have vastly more impact than one senator holding the same seat for decades.

Terrible comparison. Under the US system a SCOTUS appointment essentially gives a presidents nomination impact on the country for a lifetime afterwards with the justices not subject to the judgement of voters (not getting into whether that is good or not). This would only work as a comparison if there was a situation like SCOTUS Justices having to be reconfirmed every 10 years.

I'm a big fan of mandatory voting mainly for the way it utterly kneecaps disenfranchisement as a political strategy, but anecdotally (not time to look up stats sorry) I don't think it has a major impact on the length of time politicians spend in office.

Preferential voting probably leads to more ousting of politicians, since it makes it a lot more viable for a third party to come in and shake things up.

So true fact: Creating policy for a multiethnic, continent spanning empire which is one of the largest nations on the planet and the largest economy.... isn’t easy.

It takes a lot of research, a lot of institutional knowledge and a lot of interpersonal relationships to do that.

If you are constantly churning through amateur legislators then they will never develop all of the above.

Meaning that it all will have to come from elsewhere.

Best case scenario it resides in the civil service. The legislators’ staff, CBO, whatever department it involved, etc etc. That is best case but has some serious flaws.

Worst case it shifts to lobbyists. They’ll be the ones to write and coalition build votes around.

OR... We could let that knowledge reside in the electeds.

If you really did believe that, you'd blow your brains out.
But you won't.
Cuz what you really believe in is your own deluded sense of superiority.
Can't hold that over us if you're dead, can ya?
Nope, you love life juuuuust fine.

Hi, welcome to Capitalism. You must be new.

fucked up if true;

Some of the political parties in Canada have preferential voting for their leadership contests. I can't think of a time where a compromise candidate who won didn't turn out to be a crushing disappointment.

^Ends sentence with semicolon.

What's neat is that at the end of the day I don't want children bombed by a U.S. president.