Then elections should be more vigilant, and protected. It's wrong to deny the voice of the people because someone MIGHT start rigging elections. If the will of the people is ignored, then revolt against the rigger. You have this kind of corruption right now, but instead of the right one person, they just string along 20 people that suit them best.

Two terms for the President, but not for the House or Congress...

As I recall, what finally galvanized the term limits initiative was FDR winning a fourth term when already seriously ill, leading him to make extremely poor decisions that benefited Stalin, and then later dying.

Term limits have brought more corruption to Michigan over the last thirty years because when you shove all the experienced legislators out of the government, bills get written by lobbyists and paid advocates who end up knowing the system better than the endless stream of newbies elected on the premise that outsiders with the money to pay for their campaigns are the best way to go.

@@bobagorofand I think we should repeal that. Think of how different things would be if Obama could have run for a third term

Ro G Sorkinism at it's best

Magic.

It was one of the best shows on being a decent human being there ever was.

Damn right!

nfinn42 - I totally agree. The writing & acting were legendary. I'm a conservative & I still believe it was truly one of the best TV shows of all time.

Try Newsroom

​@nahm0002 Newsroom was epic too, as only Aaron Sorkin could do. West Wing, however, is truly a timeless masterpiece.

My headcanon is that the reason the GOP Congress never screwed the Bartlet Administration badly is because the reformers he appointed did their job.

Someone’s got to lead and it ain’t the donkey or the elephant.

@@bobojo37 who wouldn’t have voted for Bartlet. Only the beltway GOP and the hill people and the latter ain’t registered.

And then gets owned on the phone - with just a few words. LOL!

It's Belker from Hill Street Blues

Nah,it's Belker's evil twin.

All the Republicans on this show look like Sopranos characters...

I was thinking the same thing, Tyranusfan.

Or because, you know, she's a lead character...

Because Josh can't do a thing without Donna. It is known.

as assistant to the Deputy Chief of Staff, she's the Deputy-Deputy Chief of Staff :-)

1:07 = Carol CJ's assistant

Because the show was about the growth of two women, CJ and Donna Moss.

And growling in some perp's face.

Whereas Matt Perry played a very convincing role as Joe Quincy.........former clerk to one the justices of the U. S. Supreme Court

*growling noises*

Yeah, we really need a coke fiend as President. You are confusing the writer with the contents of his scripts.

He doesn't want to be the guy. He wants to be the guy the guy counts on.

@@johnobrien7562 Josh Lyman for Chief of Staff.

Still, whoever Josh Lyman thinks is the guy, it'd be nice to have him on the ballot in November.

Surely you mean Donna Moss For President with Josh Lyman as Vice President.

Honestly, I'd like to see Kate as President. But it'll never happen

90Mriley1 “Mandatory Minimums”. Season 1, episode 20.

We do. They are called elections.

The founders knew what they were doing and it is true that you get the government you deserve. If the people of the nation continue to vote for incompetence, incompetence is what they shall have.

Term limits don't change much. You just get a different face with the same policies and the same people pulling the strings. They project the illusion of change without providing anything of actual substance. If anything, term limits make it easier for corruption to fester, because they allow the deeper issues to be ignored. The only thing that can actually root out entrenched corruption in politics is an educated and engaged electorate. That's why both education and voting rights are things that are staunchly opposed by the corrupt.

We need money reform. Only way we get is with a new Supreme Court. Not the one that approved Citizens United. The worst decision since Dred Scott, but before Dobbs.

​@@danwallach8826 Citizens United. One of the top 5 worst decisions, by one or the top 5 worst courts ever. The instability in modern US politics can largely be traced back to that disgraceful decision, as so much misery can be traced back to Dred Scott, the Taney Court and the Fugitive Slave Act.

In Ancient Athens, the terms of members of the council of 500 that prepared the meetings of the ekklesia, were limited. If I remember correctly, someone could be reelected once, but not further. While that was no problem for the highly populated inner districts of athens-city, the outer districts with a much lower population density had troubles filling those positions, considering that they were not paid much for that and had to travel long distances, leaving them with less time for their actual work. That lead to a point where the council was dominated by the inner districts on an intellectual level and thus setting agendas that did not necessarily took into account the needs of the outer districts. This problem would be similar in the US if we were to introduce term limits for members of the US House or the US Senate. The intellectual independence of members of those democratic bodies would be diminished. There would be more new members who would have to "learn" the job. With very harsh term limits like in Athens, the legislature would have to figure out how to do their job at the beginning of every session. Another problem would be that the skill of drafting legislation would be handed over to lobbyists and staffers. Noone elected those people. So if you want term limits, something like 6 terms for the House and two term for the US Senate would be good, in order to make sure that those bodies can still function. However, the issues with term limits is that they tackle a problem created by a different issue. Gerrymandering made it possible for politician to chose their voters. Instead of introducing term limits that come with a lot of baggage and only somewhat solve the problem, banning partisan gerrymandering and creating a system that creates fair and competitive districts would be the superior solution. However, if you go that far, you might as well go full circle and create a completely new system that's more fair and better controllable by the people than the current one. But to use the words of Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other systems we already tried."

​@@danielk5780I think the best system is direct democracy. Like jury duty, citizens would be paid to serve in large elected bodies not unlike those in Athens. As for drafting legislation - it's already written by advisors and lobbyists. The tea party Congress was full of witless cranks. Many remain. A representative democratic republic fails when it's representatives stop representing people and start representing those with money and power. You can't walk into your reps office and expect a meeting, or book one, though you should be able. A lobbyist from some big company can, any time and every time. Reformist legal scholars talk about overcomplicated codes, and they're right. The issues of term limits and writing laws would need to be addressed, as can other problems. Right now we're like gamblers losing money on the slot machines, throwing good money after bad and hoping for the big win. It won't come. Meanwhile, the price of education is exorbitant, leaving most people excluded from any school let alone the best ones. Most, almost all the problems in the current political system would be solved by direct democracy and simple legal language. Clearer laws. No pork. Fairness and equity, where people vote, instead of choose people to vote for them. Most people have no clue what their representatives do, day in and day out. They stump, canvass, get elected and especially in the Senate with its absurd seniority laws, they stay elected. 6 years turns into 60. How many senators retire ? Most seem to die in their position. Direct democracy can work, does work in various forms in other nations and should at least be considered, or trialled in some way. The notion that laws must be complex, arcane and obfuscatory has been too long accepted. As jury duty ensures citizens are engaged with the legal system, direct democracy would ideally do the same for the political system.

"When the playing field is level and fair.." That's the part to focus on.

@@jamesstewart556 it's never going to be fair. Even if money is taken out of the equation. Some people are born handsome, more charismatic, better manipulators. Life isn't fair and equitable, it never will be

@@lughildana Some people see a problem and quit immediately. I don't think Aaron Sorkin creates TV shows for that type of person, though.

Agree with this. Term limits are a guard rail against autocracy. The first thing a dictator for life in Latin America or Africa does is pass a constitutional ammendment removing term limits. Removing term limits is a big red flag. They may not be ideal, but the specter of autocracy must be fought with all the weapons we have, even blunt ones.

@@MascotWP Agreed, especially when you consider that most of our political leadership is in their 70s and 80s - an age when, if it was our mom or dad, we’d start to worry about their ability to even care for themselves.

Even if it did all work, why not also have term limits? Would we really be lost without the few hundred leaders in power now? Surely each and every year should bring new people ready to meet the challenge.

YES ! exactly

"I need to arm myself with the kind of weapon that only makes sense in a battlefield" is a manifestation of lack of trust in other Americans, in and of itself.

Getting stuck up on American vs British spelling is just beating a dead horse...find a better joke (and I say that as a New Zealander who uses British spelling most of the time), but I was interested in why it used the British spelling here - I searched for the particular hotel and can't actually find a Sheraton Centre/Center Hotel DC - the main one that pops up is in Toronto, which would obviously use the British spelling. I wonder if the writers took the Canadian one and "moved" it to DC, or maybe there's an older one that google doesn't find as easily with some historical reason to use the British spelling. If it's just made up I would have expected the American spelling - particularly as Sheraton is an American company. Or maybe it was just a typo?

@@jacklinton4885 standards always matter

@@justinwellington6448 Sure, and the British standard says one thing while the American standard says another...the US has enough shit going on that you can look down on, taking issue with spelling just makes you look like a pompous high school student who just found out that different people speak different ways. Are you snobbish about accents as well? What about full on dialect changes?

Some places in the US like to be pretentious and use the Brit spelling.

I'd argue that a person's life is a lot more important than a light bulb, and being a judge is quite different from a guy browsing the electronics section of a Walmart.

That's exactly right. The dumb cocksuckers would still be using 150watt bulbs where 7 watts would do.

And we do. That's why old wasteful bulbs are banned and energy saving LED ones are in.

Think about the Civil Rights Act.

You've had a lot of discussions with senators as a senior White House aide, have you? What makes you think that powerful and educated people can't be just as vulgar and smarmy as anybody else?

In the real world do senators threaten senior White House personnel?

The senator was asking for it. All the Bartlett administration wanted to do was name 2 campaign finance reformers in the Federal Election Commission. Josh and Sam went to the Republicans to feel their temperature. The Republicans who control Congress in the show then threatened to pass legislation after legislation on controversial issues if Bartlett went ahead with the nominationa. (Flag burning, English as national language etc.etc.) How else were they proposed to respond?

Certains and certain people. Or do you think grenade launchers should be commerically available just because the 2nd ammendment said you can join a militia if the other 12 colonies had any funny ideas

@@ryuhitsuya21 The second amendment forbids the government from interfering with a right the people are assumed to have. As to what constitutes "arms", that's another issue, but I'm willing, for the sake of discussion, to exclude crew-served weapons. And, just for you, grenade launchers, RPGs, and the like, allowed only with training and licensing. In exchange, jr. high and high schools will make militia classes a requirement for graduation, and actual enrollment in an organized state or local militia entitles you to the current standard issue Army assault rifle. (Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 16.) Sure, semi-auto only, I guess--I''m open to compromise. For, as I say, the sake of discussion.

@@50srefugee Hey Americans killing Americans what's not to like, win win as far as I'm concerned......

Actually, Josh himself states he's actually ready to accept a lot of different positions on gun control as being "perfectly valid" in an earlier episode and we never see what Leo and Toby and the others think about gun control, actually. Also, you do realize that ALL laws are about controlling people, right? That's all a law does. It tells people what to do or not to do. That's why we have them. To control people. So try again. Actually, don't. I won't be responding.

not really, the shutdown arc was post Sorkin, and anyway if you don't want to be called a villain you shouldn't act like a cartoon version of one like the modern republicans are wont to do.

Ainsley Hayes and Cliff Calley were Sorkin Republicans, as were Joe Quincy and Jack Reese.

Perhaps you do not remember, but the higher sentences for Crack were largely proposed and strongly supported by the Black Leadership because they expected that it would reduce Black cocaine use, since Crack was believed to be the way that they consumed it. Perhaps a mistake, but not designed to increase Black incarceration, nor over white levels.