> 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.

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?

>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?

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!

> 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 like early voting myself, but whatever gets more people voting!

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.

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

I know. And you're an idiot for using that as the main basis of your decision-making. Not a gotcha, just an observation.

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

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?

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

City council? The people who just gave themselves pensions after 8 years instead of 12? Good.

What skin do you have in the game? Do you live in the city?

True, OP could always reserve a table in the back room which is less crowded and quieter.

It’s Sinclair. Super sketchy company. Run by the same family who run Atlas. Whole thing is scummy as hell.

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 😂😂😂

Nothing is unbiased. I'm saying there's already a tool in place to stop a politician from being in office.

The real pro tip is to vote in advance by mail. I'm never bothering with going to an actual polling place again.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.