Republicans are grappling with public polls showing the public places more blame on them, rather than the Democrats, for the shutdown, even as they argue they have the moral high ground in the shutdown fight.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Republicans stress that they put no partisan poison pills in a GOP-crafted, House-passed stopgap to fund the government through Nov. 21. Democrats in the Senate have repeatedly blocked that bill as they demand that Republicans first negotiate with them on health care issues, particularly on enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies expiring at the end of the year.
Poll after poll finds that slightly more Americans think Republicans are to blame for the shutdown than who think Democrats are at fault.
If you’re in government it’s your responsibility to keep the government running. In most other countries if the government can’t pass a budget then it’s a vote of no confidence and we call another election immediately.
I think one of America’s biggest fuckups was designing a system where elections can only be every four years
Just add the way Athens dealt with this thousands of years ago. You vote twice for each representative: once to get him into office, and a second time at the end of the term to determine if he can stay or gets banished from the city.
Banishment should be making them live in Bakersfield. Nobody deserves such a wretched fate, deserved for a politician thought.
No.
The correct answer is Gary, Indiana.
Some of them could be deported to Russia. They are doing Putins work, so he should pay their pensions.
For the presidency.
House terms are 2 years, and Senators are 6 years.
Lack of term limits fir Supreme Court judges was another big fuckup
Even the system of checks and balances were kind of a fuckup if you think about it - the whole system just presumes that most people are acting in good faith and bad faith actors are limited to a few positions or a single branch.
The system wasn’t supposed to be perfect or eternal. The founders explicitly said that they expected each successive generation to essentially rewrite the constitution. It’s not their fault that we only made minor tweaks over 250 years.
The threshold for passing reform is too damn high. There should’ve been some mandatory period to make the change happen more often and easily to keep with the times. Now we’re stuck with an antiquated system that still mentions slavery in its founding documents and its loopholes are so well known that someone’s using it to turn this country into an autocracy.
I don’t know that the threshold is the problem. I think the problem is that about 35% of humans are complete pieces of shit. I don’t know how you account for that effectively. Expecting the rest of society to counter them seems about as reasonable of a solution as you’re likely to find and that’s essentially what we have now.
Shoulda made the revamp of the constitution an enforced, time-boxed process then. Currently the approximate timeframe of getting an amendment through is what, 60 years or so?
It actually assumes bad faith actors in all positions. The failure was allowing teams. That’s why Washington hated them.
I’m curious how teams would be prevented.
Everything suggested also violated other parts of the constitution, so nothing was ever implemented. That was part of the ‘it’s a republic, if you can keep it.’
Correct. They cannot be separate powers but coequal without the ability of enforcement. If the military is all subordinate to the president, and Congress or SCOTUS don’t have resources to enforce their oversight of the others, then they are not coequal. They are coequal in theory, never in practice.
Yeah, instead of having a lifetime appointment, or having a specific number of justices, they could just make it so that, at the beginning of the 4 year presidential term, the President gets to nominate a fixed number of Supreme Court justices, who serve for a fixed number of years.
I heard somebody propose that system, and I can’t help thinking that it would solve a lot of the problems with our Supreme Court.
There are some laws tied to the lifetime of a person, like appointing certain judges, and copyright law, and the more I think about it, the more I realize that there is always a better solution.
And for a mandated maximum age for politicians
I’m not sure that would be a good idea because in the future, life expectancy could change. With advancement in medicine, there could be a time in the future when the average 80 year old is just as capable as the average 40 year old
Could be, but it’s rather speculative to legislate on that in the current.
I think it’s healthy for politics to have more youthful individuals in the mix. And I think it’s also important that the elderly are protected from themselves (thinking about McConnell and Feinstein).
If there’s a minimum age, because of competence, there should be a maximum. It can then always debated about suspending that or raising the age if it’s medically appropriate. But if rather see people retire in good health and spending time with their grandchildren.
While you are at it, add term limits to congress and senate seats as well.
That just makes the new person very bribeable
While the current ones are not at all bribed? At least it would spread the corruption amongst more people.
What? Unlike now?
Please goddess no.
Why no? You want to keep the 80+ guys who are firmly in some companies pocket sitting there?
Term limits is just a RW talking point. It would help nothing.
Never heard it being biased in any way. And I think, the Republicans would actually have more at stake here, with some of them being positively antique.
Because back then, the fastest way to get a message from a to b was to send a guy with a 🐎.
It’s because if politicians aren’t professional grifters, they are supposed to resign and indict new elections, if the parliament doesn’t have the numbers to pass laws.
Except in the USA there are only two parties and the party in power would basically never declare no confidence.