Social Meme Thread v115: Return of the God-Emperor.

[Kingz]

Colombia done fucked with the wrong bull

 

[GearSolidMetal]

 

[lifelessheap]

Which one of you was this?

 

[Kingz]

God damn. Prime Jennifer Connelly was mint.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

 

[idrankyourbeer]

 

[GearSolidMetal]

 

[GearSolidMetal]

 

[Scerpi]

 

[Gamer2k4]

Someone brought up a good point. If the people vote for a person, why shouldn't they serve a 3rd, 4th and so on term? If the people want it, why not?

I've got three answers to that and I don't have the patience to blend them all together, so I'll just hit them one by one.

First of all, people tend to vote for the incumbent unless something goes horribly wrong - and even then, they'll usually blame that something on things out of the incumbent's control. That's why we have career politicians: name recognition matters far more than it should.

The second reason is tied into the first, and it's something that we all generally agree on: career politicians are a bad thing. It's impossible to stay in Washington for decades and still remain connected to your voters. Forcing new blood onto the campaign trail also forces candidates to pick platforms and policies that distinguish themselves from the rest. They have to find out what voters actually want, and connect with them in a way an incumbent usually doesn't need to. Primaries become a necessity, and if the current office holder is really so indisputably amazing, the replacements are going to run on the same platform he or she did anyway. If the people want it, they'll vote for it.

The third reason is the same reason we have an Electoral College instead of going by popular vote. Sometimes what the majority wants isn't what's best for everyone (the tyranny of the majority). There are checks and balances everywhere to avoid that, and term limits is one of those checks.

In short, it's the frog boiling problem. People would rather stay with what's comfortable and familiar, even if it's no longer what it used to be and only getting worse. "If the people want it, why not?" Because people are idiots. Forcing churn is a step toward mitigating that.

 

[Horse Style]

I've got three answers to that and I don't have the patience to blend them all together, so I'll just hit them one by one.

First of all, people tend to vote for the incumbent unless something goes horribly wrong - and even then, they'll usually blame that something on things out of the incumbent's control. That's why we have career politicians: name recognition matters far more than it should.

The second reason is tied into the first, and it's something that we all generally agree on: career politicians are a bad thing. It's impossible to stay in Washington for decades and still remain connected to your voters. Forcing new blood onto the campaign trail also forces candidates to pick platforms and policies that distinguish themselves from the rest. They have to find out what voters actually want, and connect with them in a way an incumbent usually doesn't need to. Primaries become a necessity, and if the current office holder is really so indisputably amazing, the replacements are going to run on the same platform he or she did anyway. If the people want it, they'll vote for it.

The third reason is the same reason we have an Electoral College instead of going by popular vote. Sometimes what the majority wants isn't what's best for everyone (the tyranny of the majority). There are checks and balances everywhere to avoid that, and term limits is one of those checks.

In short, it's the frog boiling problem. People would rather stay with what's comfortable and familiar, even if it's no longer what it used to be and only getting worse. "If the people want it, why not?" Because people are idiots. Forcing churn is a step toward mitigating that.

I never said to get rid of the Electoral College. If there was a possibility of serving a 3rd or 4th term, it'd still be through the Electoral College. The EC is still, for the most part, the will of the people.

Career politicians can be a problem if there aren't any real consequences for when they fuck up. With the current system, a President could be doing a fantastic job but he can't keep going because "well, it's time for something new". If you find a product or service that is really good, you don't just go "well, this product has been consistently working well for me but I'm going to randomly switch to a different product/vendor because it's new"

Incumbents usually have a better chance than newcomers for the same reason people are loyal to a brand. They know what they're getting and are fine with it so it's better on taking a chance on someone who may just be making empty promises. There have definitely been instances where "you'll just get 4 more years of [insert last President]" is a damaging criticism with the Kamala v Trump race being the most recent example.

And if you're saying most people are dumb (I agree) and will just vote for the incumbent no matter what kind of job they do, who is to say they won't just vote for the new person who is going to be the same kind of President as the incumbent?

 

[GearSolidMetal]

 

[Deleted member 592570]

God damn. Prime Jennifer Connelly was mint.

 

[S Class]

 

[KnightTemplar]

He might not be Gay, but Trump just made him his prison bitch.

 

[S Class]

 

[fungi]

 

[Scerpi]

 

[Mr Holmes]

 

[GtehMVP]

The centaur Trump meme always makes me laugh.