Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RandomRivr t1_ivknx62 wrote

I’ve never seen such opposition to term limits as I have in this Baltimore sub.

If you ask people about term limiting out the dinosaurs in Congress like Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley, 85% of the country agrees! Term Limit Survey. Term limits are overwhelmingly popular, and are nothing new at the local level. Quick google search shows that 8 of 10 of the largest cities in the US have term limits on their city council.

I’m honestly failing to see why this wouldn’t be a good idea. The arguments against it that I seem to be hearing are “Sinclair supports it therefore it must be bad!”. As cliche as it sounds, even a broken clock is right twice a day. I hear the arguments about fearing increased lobbying money, but it’s not as if Baltimore city’s government has been well run and free of corruption without term limits. Corruption and dark money seep their way into politics, term limits or not. If anything, this will force change from our career politicians and will hopefully create a sense of urgency for those in office to get things done before their terms are up.

If I’m missing anything I’d love to hear more arguments against this, but from the arguments I’ve read, it genuinely seems like the only opposition over this stems from the fact that Sinclair supports it. Our city government has been laughably corrupt and incompetent, why do we want to stick with the status quo and not try something new? I may disagree with Sinclair 99% of the time, but I feel like some pragmatism is needed here when looking at this issue.

5

thats_otis t1_ivkym3z wrote

I do not agree with you, but I very much appreciate your thoughtful, informed, and non-confrontational post, especially in a sub that almost 100% also disagrees. Thank you. We all need more of this. gif

7

RandomRivr t1_ivl287u wrote

Of course! I’m just genuinely curious to see why so many are opposed to this.

5

HowManyMeeses t1_ivkz5w9 wrote

There are plenty of sources in this thread and many others on this topic highlighting why people are against this specific measure. It's weird that you're acting like they're not here.

>it genuinely seems like the only opposition over this stems from the fact that Sinclair supports it

I was initially for the measure and sort of jumped on the fence about it because of Sinclair's support. I commented on it in this sub and a person pretending to be a progressive tried to convince me that it's a good idea. That was enough for me. If the alt-right media is pushing for it and they're using those sorts of tactics to get their way, then I'm fully out.

7

AdDue1062 t1_ivlam2j wrote

So you exactly agree that you're only against it because Sinclair is for it. You seem to be an incredible critical thinker who can assess issues for what they are without being steered by what other people think.

−3

HowManyMeeses t1_ivli72e wrote

I'm not entirely sure why you would think this is a gotcha. I literally said I was influenced by the fact that Sinclair is doing this much to influence the vote on this issue.

5

AdDue1062 t1_ivllh9i wrote

I know. And you're an idiot for using that as the main basis of your decision-making. Not a gotcha, just an observation.

−5

HowManyMeeses t1_ivlmnyj wrote

LOL. Now that you've called me an idiot, I'll definitely vote in favor of it. You've truly made a convincing argument. Nice job!

2

AdDue1062 t1_ivlzrc1 wrote

You'll find a way to do something stupid regardless of what I say, since you're an idiot and all.

−2

sllewgh t1_ivlbvxe wrote

-Replacing politicians more often makes them easier for private interests to purchase. This effect will be compounded in 8 years when the majority of elected positions in the city all turn over at the same time.

-It is anti-democratic. Voters should decide when terms are up, not artifical limits. Voters should also get to decide that they like who's representing them now and want them to continue.

-It doesn't matter who's advocating for this or whether there's precedent for it. That doesn't impact whether it's right for Baltimore.

-It does not solve any problem. It's a lazy alternative to actually campaigning and voting bad incumbents out. The voters whose choices you disapprove of aren't gonna suddenly change when there's term limits.

5

hymie0 t1_ivmd7ki wrote

>If you ask people about term limiting out the dinosaurs in Congress like Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley, 85% of the country agrees! ... Term limits are overwhelmingly popular

As you noted but don't realize you did, term limits for other people are overwhelmingly popular. My representative is doing a great job, the problem is your representative who won't get with the program.

Source: Congress has a 20% approval rating and yet 80% reelection rates.

5

Mysterious_Table19 t1_ivkvbmn wrote

> If I’m missing anything

Odette Ramos made the point that it would essentially force there to be an all new city council, new council president and new mayor at the same time which would be terrible for institutional memory and would give an enormous amount of power to lobbyists and unelected consultants.

4

RandomRivr t1_ivkz08a wrote

The same Odette Ramos that voted with Nick Mosby to reduce the pension period for council members? The city council demonstrated exactly why we need term limits last night with their vote.

To her point, we would only be forced to replace the entire city council, mayors office, and city council president if every one of those positions wins re-election and serves their full two terms. And there will certainly be long serving advisors and bureaucrats in City Hall to help with the transition and advise new officials, so much of that institutional memory will be retained.

5

AdDue1062 t1_ivla9h5 wrote

>it would essentially force there to be an all new city council, new council president and new mayor at the same time which would be terrible for institutional memory

This sounds like the best possible thing that could befall Baltimore.

4

JesusDied4UrCynthias t1_ivlkofx wrote

City council? The people who just gave themselves pensions after 8 years instead of 12? Good.

1

RuinAdventurous1931 t1_ivl4ozv wrote

Nor have I. I live in IL now, and this is what we’ve been working toward. If Baltimore is intent on going in the opposite direction while political leaders to nothing to save residents, so be it.

3

AdDue1062 t1_ivla3k9 wrote

I feel like I've been witnessing a huge misinformation campaign around Question K. Who in their right mind looks at Baltimore city politicians and thinks "yeah, they're mostly doing a great job, let's keep em!?"

3

sllewgh t1_ivm57pd wrote

Question K isn't a referendum on the government, it's deciding whether or not to let voters keep a representative as long as they choose. It will lead to near 100% turnover in city government 8 years from now, which will be a disaster, and we'll indiscriminately force out good people along with bad.

If you think a politician needs to go, vote them out. Not that many people in this city vote, so yours is worth a lot.

2

AdDue1062 t1_ivm7s1g wrote

Baltimore voters are too stupid to be trusted to do the right thing in aggregate. The base of this city is really uneducated and wouldn't know how to vote in their own best interests to save their life.

0

sllewgh t1_ivma0jm wrote

First off, I'm a Baltimore city voter, and go fuck yourself. Secondly, how do you think this is gonna get better people in office if nothing has changed about the voters?

0

The_Waxies_Dargle t1_ivm4pzw wrote

> I’ve never seen such opposition to term limits as I have in this Baltimore sub.

I also find it baffling. It's treated like we're voting for Monty Burns to make a suit from puppies. It's just term limits and it's a 100% valid political option supported by many democrats and/or liberals.

0

bwoods43 t1_ivmuc98 wrote

I can't really tell if you are being disingenuous or just deciding to avoid any information in this thread or on the Internet about Question K in Baltimore.

To suggest that guys who have been in the Senate for decades has anything to do with limiting a mayor to eight years is silly. On top of that, your link of 8 of 10 of the largest cities "have term limits on their city council" is not the entire picture of placing two-term limits on the mayor AND the city council AND the comptroller, which is true only in Houston.

All of your other arguments could be made for instead hiring pigeons to be in charge of the city. I mean, that's something new, right? Maybe just read ANY information related to why this is unnecessary for the city, instead of claiming no other reasons exist.

0