Submitted by AlwaysGrateful710 t3_ypo8l4 in baltimore
pk10534 t1_ivltel5 wrote
Reply to comment by sllewgh in Fox attack on Baltimore? by AlwaysGrateful710
Lol that’s exactly what I thought. You admit there are valid reasons as to why certain requirements for the eligibility of politicians to run should be put into place, you just don’t agree with mine. And that’s okay, you don’t have to be for term limits. But you certainly cannot claim I’m removing a choice from the voter when you endorse policies would also, by what you have stated, remove a choice from a voter as long it’s for a “tangible reason”.
sllewgh t1_ivlttvg wrote
It's not the same thing at all. All children are unqualified for office. Not all incumbents need removal.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments