Also, on a hot summer day.

I noticed this too.

Unless you're one of the people who are working there. Or you're one of the basic bitches.

But their livelihood is just collateral damage for cause, right comrade?

Are you the same team that ran the health department reddit?

Yup, my bad. I missed the fancy qualifier.

One World was always a standby for us.

GOT TWO NEW POWER TUBES AND IT WORKS GREAT. THANKS FOR THE INPUT!

REPLACED THE TWO POWER TUBES AND IT'S RIGHT AS RAIN. THANKS FOR YOUR HELP!

The correct answer is Pittsburgh. Both ethnic cities made up of neighborhoods. Both got the shit kicked out of them by de-industrialization. Sports towns. Funny accents. Pittsburgh is better on race, Baltimore is more culturally progressive.

However, Pgh reinvented itself in the 70s and is booming.

Pittsburgh is the Wes Moore we just elected.
Baltimore is the other Wes Moore.

> 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.

Right. Just so we are both clear that the incumbent advantage renders many votes moot by means of institutionalized advantage.

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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

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.

Didn't know we had purity tests here, but yes, I live in the city and have for the past 20+ years.

I believe it's against the law for them to ask for either.

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.

And I'm saying you're catastrophizing as a rhetorical slight of hand.

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.”

Open to suggestions on improving the competency of our local elected officials. Because elections don't seem to be doing it.

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.

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.