With the Right holding us back the whole time, it was a constant fight and included an outright Civil War.
And we’re about to end all that anyway.
Lincoln was the Republican, anti-populism, anti-secession, pro-business, pro-compromise candidate.
The central tenet of voting is that, when you lose the vote, you have to accept that you lost and move forward with grace, doing your best to see that the winning side is implemented with the most care for those who would be affected.
This is as opposed to tyranny. We see the beginnings of what tyranny looks like now.
The South, having signed on to the Constitution, republican government, and rule by law and vote, forfeited all right to complain about unilateral punishment by the North for failing to live up to their promises.
A way to view it is like a marriage.
To be sure, we could decide that the best and most obvious path to decide for the unit is that the larger and stronger person - i.e. the male - gets to decide everything and the other person simply has to obey.
Now, I’d put it to you that there’s no system that vests the power of decision in one person, in a union like that, which is fair. You have to decide some means of deciding things that forces compromise. And once you’ve committed to that, you have to follow through or accept the consequences.
If she smokes, and you knew that going in, and then you have children and fear for their health, to be sure, that’s a point of contention that maybe didn’t occur to you when you formed the union. You thought that there’d always be a way to make glacial progress and/or avoid the point.
But the method of decision making - maybe it’s to call in a 3rd party, with no goal but to find a minimally harmful compromise for all parties in the name of preserving the union - and that method decides that she must go outside to smoke. It’s not the end of the world, not entirely unreasonable…and yet she snatches the baby and runs away.
This is not an ideal outcome. But it’s a fair sight better than if you had not sought that compromise, that path to slow improvement, and instead forsook the vote, were the first to fail in your duties, and be the one who simply uses his size and strength to force that smoking b**** to do what you told her to do if she doesn’t want a smacking.
To be sure, ideally you wouldn’t team up with slave owners and you wouldn’t marry a person that pumps poison into the air of cribs. But when you’re already past that point, what’s the right course?
There’s an argument that slavery is such a crime that it merited invasion. From modern armchairs, with modern sensibilities, I’m sure that’s an easy decision to make.
But we didn’t come to that viewpoint easily and it’s the view of people of expedience that lead to choosing slavery, just as much as it’s in the name of expedience to invade and fix it all.
In the world today, I can count dozens or hundreds of countries that would be improved by American invasion and tyrannical control. Should we go a-conquering?
Except Japan and Germany*, is there an example where this actually led to good outcomes?
Where the US didn’t just get a lot of people killed and then declared victory and pissed of?
- which were really not your typical countries. With a large industrial base and a wel educated population.
Of course we tolerated and promoted slavery; America is a nation built on slavery and genocide. It has always been a force for evil in the world. The Senate you defend was a significant force in protecting slavery; as intended, it made sure that evil had an unfair edge.
No, because America is a nation built on malice, bigotry and cruelty, and getting worse. There is no place it could conquer that it would improve; just exploit, oppress and slaughter, mostly for the sheer joy of doing so.
Hundreds? Methinks you are going to need to list those hundreds.
From the base of there being currently 193 UN members plus the Vatican City and Palestine, your view is extending “America First” hegemony into absolute global authoritarianism is a net plus? Or even just a plus for the US?
Shit hey, it took 25 years of absolute air supremacy in Afghanistan to thunk out you can’t bomb your way to winning hearts & minds, let alone generate a positive trade balance.
And it’s not as if you are doing a particularly competent job within your own domain. If a proportionate response is federalising the National Guard to stop some petty civil disorder and arson in downtown LA, a 100 front war might stretch your American Supremist mindset, let alone the coffers, a touch.
Going by sage’s logic I’m sure we can find enough countries suffering from democracy that could be saved from that evil by America’s tyrannical control.
Moderating:
Well, this thread certainly went off the rails, didn’t it? The topic of this thread is term limits, age caps and/or alternatives. Please stick to it.
Now that the thread is back on track 
While I can see the argument against age limits for elected official, I think it’s different for judges.
The argument against age limits for elected officials is two-fold: they come up for election on a regular basis, and the voters can take age into account.
Neither of those arguments apply to judges who are appointed and not subject to any recall. An age limit in that case has strong appeal. Turnover in significant public offices has a value; fresh blood, fresh ideas, ongoing legitimacy, derived from appointment by someone who has been elected by the people more recently than 40 years ago (some judges appointed by Reagan are still sitting!)
I think the US is one of the few countries that doesn’t have age limits for appointed judges who aren’t subject to review or recall.
On the ballot the incumbent should have the number of years they’ve been in office next to their name. Then each voter could decide for themselves if that’s too long for them.
This probably varies by jurisdiction in the U.S.
In Illinois, state and county judges do run on the ballot, and even once they are on the bench, they are subject to regular review by the voters. However, the voting for them is often not “vote for the incumbent or their challenger,” but “vote yes or no to retain each judge.” This leads to a very long ballot, with dozens of judges up for review, and about which most voters know nothing – so most voters either vote straight-line “yes,” straight-line “no,” or just skip that section of the ballot entirely.
The Illinois Bar Association does publish voters’ guides before every election which features judges on the ballot; in any given election, there are a few judges (or candidates) which the Bar Association does not recommend. But, I suspect that fairly few voters actually even know about those guides, much less vote based on the recommendations.
I agree, but that’s why I limited the hypothetical: