Submitted by AlwaysGrateful710 t3_ypo8l4 in baltimore
Have you seen those sign about voting against question k to stop fox’s attach on Baltimore? I understand question K on the ballot but do not understand how fox is attacking Baltimore with this.
Any insight would be helpful!
I've been seeing more foxes out and about than usual lately so I thought this post was about foxes ):
I was sitting on my porch one night a few summers ago (in Baltimore) minding my business, and from the corner of my eye I saw something small running fast down the sidewalk. I thought it was a cat or maybe a small dog, and then I realized it was a fox. We both ran in opposite directions of each other. I was terrified 😂😂😂
Not Baltimore, but I saw a fox running in the parking lot at my job in urban MoCo and thought that was pretty weird.
It did not attack [me] however.
The ones in Baltimore will attack you.
I remember when the Bison attacked in Baltimore.
Wow I never heard about this story before. I’m very late! 😯
Not so much attacking because prob rabies and just, no, thanks, we're good...but knowing I wasnt seeing things on 295 the other night wouldve been nice.
Right?
Specifically along Baltimore St.
It’s actually the raccoons.
which is worse?
I thought it was about the fox that lives in Patterson Park attacking someone on Baltimore St.
Term limits have been shown to increase private institutions and lobbyist power.
Thanks!
You got a source for that?
Yeah. Lemme dig it back up.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reasons-to-oppose-congressional-term-limits/
Take lobbyist influence, for example. Term limit advocates contend lawmakers unconcerned with reelection will rebuff special interest pressures in favor of crafting and voting for legislation solely on its merits. However, the term limit literature commonly finds that more novice legislators will look to fill their own informational and policy gaps by an increased reliance on special interests and lobbyists. Relatedly, lawmakers in states with term limits have been found—including from this 2006 50-state survey—to increase deference to agencies, bureaucrats, and executives within their respective states and countries simply because the longer serving officials have more experience with the matters.
Advocates also suggest that limiting the number of terms lawmakers can serve will ultimately result in fewer members looking to capitalize on their Hill relationships and policymaking experience by becoming lobbyists themselves. Establishing term limits, however, would likely worsen the revolving door problem between Congress and the private sector given that mandating member exits ensures a predictable and consistently high number of former members available to peddle their influence. The revolving door phenomenon is considered a normative problem without term limits and relatively few departing members per cycle. With term limits, the number of influential former members would drastically increase, giving more private sector landing spots to members whose time has run out. More lobbying firms would have members able to advance their special interests with former members making use of their relationships and deep understanding of the ways of the Hill.
I would be in favor of fairly expansive term limits to help mitigate the concerns but still encourage a little bit of turnover there. Something like 18 years for House and 18 years for Senate. Between the two, you would have the ability to have a 36 year career on the Hill which is more time than many people spend in one job.
That gives plenty of time for continuity and knowledge building but prevents any one person from setting up shop their entire life and preventing anyone from the next generation from having a chance due to the incumbency advantage.
I think that might be acceptable. But then again we would lose some expertise in a job that is insanely difficult to learn and relies heavily on institutional and procedural knowledge.
What’s the problem? I trust businesses to make better choices for Baltimore than I do its ineffectual and complicit politicians.
You realize that politicians will still be there, right? The question is whether or not you want the people choosing their politicians or companies choosing them.
In Baltimore? For my benefit? Absolutely, 100% I want special interests deciding.
Also, they prevent bad politicians from becoming lifelong politicians. Since the political base is hell-bent on preventing any Republicans/Libertarians/Greens from even appearing on the ballot, it's the good tool (if a little blunt) for dislodging the dynastic political elite.
Is it perfect? No. Will some good get tossed with the bad? Yes. Does it mean the idea is bad? Not at all, especially since many offices in the state are term limited as well.
Hell, you could say the governor is the position that will suffer the most from brain drain and constant change. But few voters object since Hogan is a Republican (even the kind they bemoan for not existing for taking a public stand against the Orange one).
Besides, given the state of the city, I'd be willing to roll the dice with private institution and lobbyists. Why not give it a shot for a decade and see what happens?
>Also, they prevent bad politicians from becoming lifelong politicians.
Voting does this too.
>Why not give it a shot for a decade and see what happens?
The folks trying to get power don't like giving it up once they have it.
At a local level, incumbents enjoy a 90%+ reelection rate. Even standardizing for name recognition bias doesn't come close to explaining this.
What point are you trying to make here?
Trying to counter the argument that every election cycle is an unbiased way to hold elected officials accountable. We have data that confirms the opposite.
Those who get elected one time hold an almost insurmountable advantage over any challenger. So simply saying we have elections isn't addressing the scope of the problem of incumbency advantage. Hell, it isn't even acknowledging a problem might exist.
Nothing is unbiased. I'm saying there's already a tool in place to stop a politician from being in office.
I agree. I'll even agree that term limits aren't the perfect tool. My feeling against them has nothing to do with signs about Fox news posted by the Democrat machine that controls Baltimore but for the underlying curb on free speech they include. That said, for me, the juice is worth the squeeze.
Again, the incumbent advantage is almost impossible for challengers to overcome. While we might lose an effective servant after close to a decade of service, we are also excluding a ton of younger, more dynamic, more representative officials and the new/fresh thinking that comes with them.
>posted by the Democrat machine that controls Baltimore
LOL. I wonder why you might not mind that right-wing media is involved.
>but for the underlying curb on free speech they include
Do what now?
I have zero love (or hate) for Fox. I'm a proud Libertarian nutjob that despises the Trump/Fox metastasized iteration of the Republican party.
My personal problem with term limits is that they represent a curb on freedom of speech/expression. My ability to express my political thought by voting for whoever I want to. I do believe however they they will do more good than harm. But it's not an absolute by any stretch, even if I'm forced to argue it like it is.
>Also, they prevent bad politicians from becoming lifelong politicians
That is up to the voters. Who you think are bad politicians must not be what most people think. No need to overrule democracy because you don't like the results.
Exactly, term limits already exist; it’s called Election Day. When a candidate gets voted out their term is up.
And I do not think term limits are always awful. But for low level legislative bodies they are just a giant gift to corporations.
[deleted]
Councilwoman Ramos’ take on it was a helpful read, although I can’t find it now. Basically it’s not the concept of term limits that is on the ballot, it’s how this question is written. It’s asking for all terms to come up at the same time which would cause mayhem in our political system if all positions were replaced at once with no continuity from previous admins.
Roll the dice with private institutions and lobbyists???? Holy yikes lil bro
Open to suggestions on improving the competency of our local elected officials. Because elections don't seem to be doing it.
I don't think handing the keys to the city to Comcast or Coca-Cola would serve us any better ngl
Term limits is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Yes, it's not perfect. You will force some competent people to either move up or move on. But the baby that goes out with the bathwater shouldn't get to live there in perpetuity just because they won election once.
They're not winning once, they're winning every election. You want to circumvent democracy and force people out after an arbitrary amount of time rather than let the voters decide.
No. I want the voters to decide democratically if they want to counter the incumbent advantage to combat ineffectual and unrepresentative lifelong politicians. If it sucks, we can repeal it in X years.
Voters decide if they want to counter incumbent advantage by... voting for someone else. Not by imposing term limits and removing the ability to continue voting for that person.
Right. Just so we are both clear that the incumbent advantage renders many votes moot by means of institutionalized advantage.
Not everyone is in a fortunate enough position to be willing to just risk a decade of their life on “seeing what happens”
Risk a decade of life? That's some Trump level bombast right there friend.
This is term limits we're talking about, a concept integrated into our political system from local to national levels and used by democracies all over the world.
I'm not suggesting we abolish fiat currency or privatizing roads. Let's just do away with local fiefdoms in a single party power city and see if that produces better results.
I’m referring to you saying “give it a shot for a decade” and that not everyone will be as unaffected by what might go on in that decade as you seem to believe you will
And I'm saying you're catastrophizing as a rhetorical slight of hand.
What skin do you have in the game? Do you live in the city?
Didn't know we had purity tests here, but yes, I live in the city and have for the past 20+ years.
Lmao do you think private institutions and lobbyists have been excluded from our political process in literally any way?
U do realize that things could be worse? There are no actual fleshed-out Republican/libertarian strategies, their whole schtick in Baltimore is “we aren’t democrats” literally no policy otherwise. So how someone could assume that the groups without any explicit or sensible plans are going to improve things? Doesn’t make any sense
It’s not Fox, it’s Sinclair broadcasting, who are a very similar organization but much less well known by name. The particulars of it, though, would be better googled.
The TL;DR is that Sinclair (a Cockeyeville based company) is a massive owner of local tv stations, I believe one of the biggest in the country. And Sinclair supports the term limits ballot issue.
While they don’t just own Fox affiliates, Sinclair does own WBFF, Baltimores fox affiliate. And anyone who has ever watched the news on that channel can tell you it definitely leans conservative, their “news reporting” tends to be moreso thinly veiled opinion pieces.
And this is not an isolated incident. A study previously found that stations they bought move away from neutral coverage of local news and towards more national news cover with a conservative bent.
The biggest owner of local tv news.
They’re evil af and hypocrites.
They railed against cannabis legalization for years and were the first investors in medical (David Smith, ceo is or was a heavy investor in curio wellness).
The Smiths of Sinclair broadcasting married into the Paterakis family of Harbor East real estate and started the shitty, racist Atlas Group restaurants.
And as you said, they spread racist, conservative propaganda throughout the country.
Their “reporters” are very clearly all given the same script on certain issues nationwide, so you can see a ton of different local “news” anchor with verbatim speeches
John Oliver did a great segment on Sinclair.
The same people also own Atlas restaurant group/harbor east.
Fuck Atlas.
This video shows how Sinclair operates in under 2 minutes. Dozens of stations across the country, spewing out the exact same script just to further Sinclair’s agenda.
The measure was also personally funded by David Smith, Sinclair's majority owner.
At the same time, Fox has run numerous pro-Question K stories that feature no reporting on opposition to the measure, and neglect to mention their owner's involvement in getting it on the ballot.
Baltimore native I live in Bristol Virginia Sinclair owns my local TV station WCYB. They force the local to run "news reports" from various "correspondents" during the local newscast that often "compliment" the day's news from the local announcers.
Leaves little time for real local news when they're always turning to CRT or alien hordes coming over the border.
>compliment
Just an FYI, in that context it's complement.
[deleted]
There’s no such thing as neutral coverage.
Thanks for clarifying, the signs were very confusing for someone who doesn’t know that 😅
Glad I’ve gotten a better understanding before voting today. Thanks a bunch to everyone!
Question K is the only proposed charter amendment not sponsored by anyone on city council. Sinclair spent ~ $400k promoting this. That knowledge was all I need to arrive at a NO vote even if councilpersons and mayors are only interested in preserving their positions.
As someone else mentioned, they own fox affiliated local stations like fox 45/wbff (it’s one of their flagship stations).
And as you can see from wbff’s reporting, it’s national news with a heavy conservative lean and little regard for accuracy or actual local news
The campaign to limit people's ability to reelect the leaders of their choice has been entirely bankrolled by the head of the right wing propaganda network Sinclair Broadcasting
I love the way that u put this. In my mind, term limits is a play to be able to have a “buyable” politician who isn’t working for the people in office as often as possible
It's more than that. If this passes, most current elected positions will be up at the 8 year mark. They aren't just looking to buy politicians, they get a chance to buy a set of politicians.
Great point. It would be really bad
Just voted against initiative K without knowing any of the background to who funded it. It was the only initiative I voted against. I’ve always felt like term limits are Trumpy, and by that I mean populist BS.
Maybe they care about their city and putting policies in place that will eventually lead to attracting businesses and taxpayers. Getting rid of the entirely corrupt leadership sounds like a great start.
Voting is the way to do that, not term limits. Few people vote in Baltimore, so it's easier than average to do.
Your premise is wrong; they don't live in the city.
Not sure why this question is needed. Most of the Baltimore Mayors as of late end up in jail before their second term even hits.
As of late? Out of the last 10 mayors 2 have gone jail. About 10 years apart. Y’all get on here and say anything
Why did you select the last 10 mayors as your data point? I wouldn't consider someone who was mayor in 1975 "as of late".
Since 2010, 50% of our elected mayors have gone to jail. I think my statement rings pretty true, in the modern era Baltimore clearly has a corrupt politician problem.
Because you said “as of late” the last 10 would be the most recent, correct?
I think your rings false. And you know it. Call it an Exaggeration or hyperbole.
Because you said “as of late” the last 10 would be the most recent, correct?
I think your statement rings false. And you know it. Call it an exaggeration or hyperbole.
20% of our Mayors have gone to prison, not great stats.
[deleted]
DEMOCRATS ON TERM LIMITS:
Barack Obama: “We want to see new voices and new ideas emerge. I think that is why term limits are a really useful thing.”
Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot: “Chicago is the largest city in the country without mayoral term limits,” she notes, which “has led to entrenched leaders, a lack of new ideas and creative thinking and city government that works for the few, not the many.”
U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke, TX: “The longer you are in office, the less connected you are to the people you represent, the less accountable, the less responsive. The people in this country understand that and get that and I think it helps to account for our historic low level of popularity.”
New York Governor, Kathy Hochul: “I want people to believe in their government again. With these bold reforms, we will ensure New Yorkers know their leaders work for them and are focused on serving the people of this state,” Gov. Hochul said.
U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper, Colorado: “I would not be in politics were it not for term limits. It makes sense at all levels of government.”
Andrew Yang, Candidate for NYC Mayor and former Presidential Candidate: “With term limits, members of Congress would get what they went to DC to accomplish done and then go home. It would make room for new leaders with new experiences and fresh ideas. It would make time in Congress about reaching a goal, not reaching retirement after a long career with a good salary at the expense of the public. And it would give legislators a period of time when they didn’t need to constantly fundraise, as their final term wouldn’t hold the option for reelection.”
State Rep. Geraldine Thompson, FL: “I support term limits for elected officials because I believe that too often politicians become entrenched, more concerned about their reelection than the business of the people. Our members of Congress spend too much time fundraising and not enough time governing because their number one concern is their reelection. Term limits ensure that rather than focusing on the next election, our members of Congress will be focused on what they c
Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell: “I believe we should change the charter and every elected official in Philadelphia — controller, district attorney, mayor, and City Council members — should be limited to two terms,” Rendell said. “We would have a more effective and efficient government if we did that.”
Thank you. I really don’t understand why suddenly everybody is acting like opposing unlimited stints in power is conservative, even if Sinclair supports it. I’m sure Sinclair is also against kicking puppies, that doesn’t mean we can’t agree on some basic issues.
It's irrelevant if it's conservative, what's important is that it's anti democratic. Voters should decide when someone's term is up, not term limits. This just makes it easier to buy politicians, especially when they get the chance to buy them all at once in 8 years.
Yeah you say that, but I guarantee if trump had said “term limits are anti-democratic, I’m gonna change the law so I can run for a third term” you wouldn’t be singing the same tune. It’s preposterous to state that limiting politicians from holding positions of power indefinitely is “anti-democratic”
There would be a big difference between a president unconstitutionally granting themselves power and voters democratically changing the laws that govern them, so... Shit example. Also, having precedent doesn't make it any less undemocratic.
So modify it. If trump voters were able to amend the constitution to give trump unlimited terms, you wouldn’t mind that at all and you see nothing wrong with that.
You've badly misjudged my politics. No, I will not suddenly have a problem with it just because Trump's name is attached to it, especially given the massive effort, overwhelming popular support and organization that would require.
Do you have an argument in favor of your own beliefs or do you just want to ask about mine? I think voters should decide when someone's term ends. Why do you think they should not have that choice?
If the voters pass an amendment establishing term limits, you can’t possibly argue the voters aren’t getting a choice in determining the longevity of a politicians’ career. That is the voters making a choice. It’s obviously able to be changed if the voters decide they don’t want term limits.
Sure, you can pass undemocratic policy democratically. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking about the merits of the policy. Why should this choice be taken from voters?
The choice is not being taken from voters; they are absolutely able to amend or change any part of the state constitution either through referendum like this proposition or through their candidates to the state legislature. And by that logic, any law or bill passed removes a choice for voters. If voters truly feel the policy needs to be changed, they can enact that change again. You’re treating this like it’s not able to be changed once it gets voted on and that just isn’t true
You're dodging the question. If this passes, voters will not be able to reelect someone they might want to continue to represent them. We will be taking away that choice. Why is that good or necessary?
I’ve answered the question several times already, I don’t know how many more you’d like me to repeat it: I don’t think it’s beneficial for democracy or society for a politician to hold indefinite power. To expand upon that:
I think it creates political machines and hinders the ability for fresh legislative ideas or meritocracy in legislatures/political bodies because seniority is given preference, no matter how good of a lawmaker one actually is. Incumbencies of a long duration can also create unfair advantages because the name recognition and familiarity can set up steep burdens for new candidates.
By your logic, a monopoly is okay and good because consumers chose it and we shouldn’t remove that “choice” from consumers. But that’s not always true. Sometimes we do need to ensure one entity (person or company) does not obtain too much power or presence over society or a legislature or a field of enterprise.
To further poke holes in your logic, why have age limits or residency requirements or ANY requirements for politicians since it removes people’s “choice”? I don’t buy the argument at all that setting basic standards and ethics for politicians is robbing voters of their choice.
>I think it creates political machines and hinders the ability for fresh legislative ideas or meritocracy in legislatures/political bodies because seniority is given preference, no matter how good of a lawmaker one actually is. Incumbencies of a long duration can also create unfair advantages because the name recognition and familiarity can set up steep burdens for new candidates.
Question K does not get us closer to a meritocracy, it takes us further away by indiscriminately removing politicians regardless of their competency. This policy does not serve your stated values, it proposes a paternalistic system that assumes voters can't make good choices on their own, yet relies on them doing so more often.
>By your logic, a monopoly is okay
Please stick to engaging with stuff I actually said instead of making up arguments for me.
>To further poke holes in your logic, why have age limits or residency requirements or ANY requirements for politicians since it removes people’s “choice”?
There are tangible downsides to having children or people who don't live here as representatives.
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”.
It's not the same thing at all. All children are unqualified for office. Not all incumbents need removal.
> I think voters should decide when someone's term ends.
That's what this question is about. Voter deciding if they think term limits are good way to keep the democratic process vibrant and fresh instead of the same terrible candidates winning because they got elected once.
Hard disagree. This is limiting all candidates, not bad ones.
> Voters should decide when someone's term is up, not term limits.
Unless they vote FOR term limits. Then the voters are deciding that the incumbent advantage is undemocratic and we shouldn't be beholden to ineffective politicians just because they got elected once.
>Unless they vote FOR term limits. Then the voters are deciding that the incumbent advantage is undemocratic
You throw the baby out with the bath water by preventing people that are actually good from continuing to serve.
>and we shouldn't be beholden to ineffective politicians just because they got elected once.
Then vote the ineffective ones out instead of passing a policy that's indiscriminate.
Because they're mostly paid shills. The people have spoken and they are hugely in favor of term limits despite whatever disinformation is being spread.
Exactly! Happy to see it passed :)
I don't think term limits are unreasonable. Some career politicians who have been in office for 30+ years are out of touch. Their interpretation of for example the digital millennium copyright act isn't going to be inline with the electorate. Also there is the issue of graft. There are alot of politicians enriching themselves on the job.
The problem with Question K is that it limits service in any part of Baltimore government to two terms. I'm fine with term limits for positions. Also I don't trust bills like this that are heavily sponsored by Sinclair broadcasting....it just smells fishy.
ELI5, you get elected mayor, you two term = that's it, you're done, ball game over, you're termed out of MD politics and can't run for governor?
Cause shit, if that's the case, my bad guys, I early voted.
You can run for a different office, but you can't hold the same position more than two terms.
...Fed office too? Like Dutch or Chris V?
I don't know for sure, but I doubt a law passed for Baltimore city would apply to higher offices.
What makes you think an electorate that is so out of touch it will vote in "bad" people will improve by being forced to vote for new people?
Virginia's governor is termlimited to one 4 year term. This creates a sense of urgancy and forces action. If your satisfied with the status quo by all means vote against question K. Personally I think new people with new ideas could do alot of good for the city. Everything from roads, to crime, to education, to housing and development.
You cannot compare term limiting the executive and term limiting the legislature.
You know what creates urgency among politicians? The desire to get reelected.
Politicians should concern themselves with providing effective leadership and sound policies not JUST thier reelection campaigns.
Well that is great and all but people perform when they are held to account not by you wishing they be better.
When someone doesn’t have to worry about getting re-elected more than just once, are they going to do what’s best for the people or what’s best to enrich themselves while in office?
No, that just creates holistically harmful policies that pander to a base at opportune times. Since everyone here seems to be part of that base, I'm not at all surprised at the state of the city.
> Virginia's governor is termlimited to one 4 year term.
VA's also a state where their Republican governor wasn't chosen via an open primary, which allowed him to run as a moderate and govern like he's doing.
Even for all that's wrong with Hogan, we're so much better off with the system we have.
it's interesting to see calls for term limits on politicians be extremely popular, but then when it comes to their locality "ohh no, this is the worst thing ever!".
I wonder if there were some way to tip the scales but not require term limits. for example, maybe after 2 terms, the candidate has to win by 2/3rds majority to hold their seat.
Ranked choice voting. Let democracy decide.
yeah, open primaries where the top ~4 candidates (regardless of party) go to the general election would be ideal. I think California does something like this.
that said, we know that incumbent name recognition gives and advantage above and beyond an individual's platform. so if you want the best ideas to win, you want to lean slightly away from incumbents
Alaska too
This is a legitimate question: what is the fundamental purpose of term limits? Corruption is a problem, and ineffective representation of voters' issues is a problem. I agree. But how are term limits a solution to those problems?
K just plays on the idea that government employees are do nothings who just collect a paycheck and provide nothing of value. Imagine all of the institutional knowledge you lose by limiting all positions with term limits. It just creates an environment where businesses can take advantage of the knowledge drain.
There’s a reason why so many people new to politics/government have such a had time following governmental rules (e.g., obligations). Just look at the number of OIG findings from the Trump administration’s appointees and then scale that down to a local level. It would be pure chaos.
Knowledge in government, good one. It will be such a dark day to lose all the wonderful knowledge around grifting taxpayers, redistributing wealth to criminals, making laws unenforceable, and ignoring infrastructure.
Not sure if you're just being edgy and pessimistic or if you really don't understand the functioning of the government and the importance of experience.
While term limits are good, question K would only allow someone to hold office in baltimore city government for 2 terms. Not any specific seat for two terms, but only hold any combination of offices for a total or 2 terms. This would mean that any candidate who is term-limited in one office would not be allowed to run for another office. That is not how term limits generally workand would totally jack up our local government even more.
The other significant issue, I believe, with Question K is that the terms all expire simultaneously. So all of the offices affected would be vacated every 8 years. I can't think of any comparable governing body that just disappears all at once like that.
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.
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.
Of course! I’m just genuinely curious to see why so many are opposed to this.
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.
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.
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.
I know. And you're an idiot for using that as the main basis of your decision-making. Not a gotcha, just an observation.
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!
You'll find a way to do something stupid regardless of what I say, since you're an idiot and all.
-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.
>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.
> 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.
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.
>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.
City council? The people who just gave themselves pensions after 8 years instead of 12? Good.
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.
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!?"
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
While I agree that Sinclair provides slanted news and Atlas is lame, I don't think the idea of term limits for our city is bad. Just because the question is supported by Sinclair / Smith does not mean it is a bad idea. Somtimes good ideas are supported by those you don't like or respect. #principleoverparty
Ok, but are you gonna make the argument that it's good policy?
I am. Baltimore has a long history of corrution, entitlement and one party politics. That is rarely a good combination. Career politicians often have the goal of assuring their power and influence. While there have certainly been good leaders in office for many years, having the same people on city council for decades is not productive, in my opinion.
If this only removed the bad politicians, it would be great policy. Unfortunately it indiscriminately removes everyone after 8 years.
There are a couple issues with that. First of all, different people's opinions vary on who is considered a good politician. Secondly, the bill allows for 8 years in city council, an additional 8 years as city council president and an additional 8 years as mayor. A truly good politician can stay in office for 24 years! They can also run again for whatever office they had after sitting out for 8 years.
>There are a couple issues with that. First of all, different people's opinions vary on who is considered a good politician.
That's not really relevant. Whoever you think the good ones are, they're gone. Doesn't matter if we agree on who.
> Secondly, the bill allows for 8 years in city council, an additional 8 years as city council president and an additional 8 years as mayor. A truly good politician can stay in office for 24 years! They can also run again for whatever office they had after sitting out for 8 years.
Not a consolation prize. I'd reelect my councilperson indefinitely, but they wouldn't make a good mayor or president. Now that choice has been taken away.
If Baltimore were doing well as a city with politicians who were directly dealing with the issues at hand, I would agree with you. I understand your logic and I respect your position but I just don't agree
This new policy will change nothing. If people weren't electing effective leaders before, there's no reason to expect they'll start now.
The patterson park fox is so nice. Love seeing her with a huge rat in her mouth late at night. Always wonder how those fights go down.
By eliminating candidates that people in the city would like to keep electing the only institutionalized knowledge would be held by big monied interest like Sinclair.
Thank You all for supporting Question K!
Can't wait for all these jackasses to get washed away.
Be careful what you wish for. If you think the city is dysfunctional and corrupt now, just wait until 2024, when our entire city government (except for comptroller) is replaced at once and special interests have an even more outsized influence on city elections.
Baltimore did a stupid thing approving question K. There are much better way to impose term limits.
Joke's on you, special interests are way more aligned with my needs than any populist could ever be.
[deleted]
Faux news and the faux channels seem to hate anything democrat .
It’s Sinclair. Super sketchy company. Run by the same family who run Atlas. Whole thing is scummy as hell.
F@&K Sinclair. I’ll vote for a well thought out term limit proposal with staggered implementation. We don’t need 100% new council members every 8 years. Some degree of institutional knowledge is good. Too much is stagnation. Maybe 12 years on a rotation basis. And F Sinclair again.
Yah, my kid’s school was on lockdown due to a rabid fox on the grounds. Hence, and I thought this was about the Fox network attacking Baltimore.
Either you support term limits or you don't, but term limits are obviously not some radical idea.
I generally support them, but this particular amendment has coterminous terms for the three top offices, which would have the three highest officials simultaneously running for re-election.
If they created an amendment that staggered them or had different lengths of terms, sure, but this one just seems primed for officials checking out to campaign every other term while still on the job. There is an amendment out there I'd support, but it's not this one.
I know, right? I got downvoted to oblivion. But I support term limits generally, I think a healthy democracy doesn't have career politicians.
It's not, it's someone either intentionally or with limited information conflating a bunch of different things to try to score a political point.
Classifiedgarlic t1_ivki0z7 wrote
I’m disappointed with this post. I was hoping for actual foxes attacking