Oh, I'm sorry, not trying to be cagey. POTUS 45 is the most obvious recent example, (for those who follow news).

Oh, I'm sorry, not trying to be cagey. POTUS 45 is the most obvious recent example, (for those who follow news). — LuckyR

So the president isn't Congress.. But if anything, that is a great reason why we need term limits.

The proposal you make is like such a small step. It's as if we were in a battleship on the morning before a naval battle debating what to have for breakfast. You are part of the problem just for making such a suggestion.

I'm the kind of person who thinks even advocacy for gay rights or ending racism is a waste of time. If you really think something like the lack of term limits for some elected positions is a problem worth discussing I don't know where you've been sticking your head for the last 40 years. — Garth

Um, the battleship is cracking and sinking. Term limits on Congress is actually a pretty massive structural change. The goal is to take away the downsides of always thinking about next primary/election cycle and becoming seen as "entrenched" as an insider. So many people are turned off by the whole system because of "insiders" who are out of touch.

I agree with term limits for the executive branch for two reasons, to prevent a monarchy and because in our system, until recently, presidential candidates had a lot of government experience. No, my beef is less on term limit statutes and more with the erroneous belief that a lack of experience is a plus for performing the job of legislator, unlike every other job.

No, my beef is less on term limit statutes and more with the erroneous belief that a lack of experience is a plus for performing the job of legislator, unlike every other job. — LuckyR

I understand and can sympathize with that notion. However, look at the partisanship it causes to think about election cycles. Repubs are scared to even condemn the extreme wing and compromise for fear of losing primaries to an upstart.

No, my beef is less on term limit statutes and more with the erroneous belief that a lack of experience is a plus for performing the job of legislator, unlike every other job — LuckyR

So you voted for McCain over Obama? Because that was a race where one had far more experience than the other. I'm guessing you didn't because the will of the Party is more important than being consistent. Ever see 1984?

I think the problem lies in the idea that only lawyers and soldiers have the experience to govern its citizens.

I would say in a democracy the first step to better politicians is a better educated and less gullible population — Tzeentch

I agree, to an extent.
The politicians already decide how citizens are educated.
Making Administration, Debate, and Logic required courses can expand the pool of available viable citizens that can run for office, instead of being limited to only Harvard and Yale graduates.

Perhaps you didn't read my posts correctly. My issue is not a comparo of one level of experience vs another, it is the idea that having no experience at all is a selling point for a candidate. As you already know, Obama didn't sell himself as superior to McCain because he had served in the Senate for a shorter time period.

No. I read it correctly. Comparing no experience with some experience is a comparison of experience.

Besides, what qualifies as experience and no experience for governing citizens? Does being a lobbyist give the necessary experience? What about donating to political campaigns in order to manipulate the politician?

Like I said, that you didn't read correctly, the problem is assuming that lawyers and soldiers are the only ones qualified to govern others.

Oh, and Obama did run on his "outsider" status in Washington.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/politics/obama-cleared-way-for-todays-outsider-candidates.amp.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-who-once-stood-as-party-outsider-now-works-to-strengthen-democrats/2016/04/25/340b3b0a-0589-11e6-bdcb-0133da18418d_story.html

Speaking of lawyers, nice try in smokescreenism, but:
1) Obama had been a sitting US senator, thus had experience in government
2) Therefore your erroneous reference to "...no experience..." is at best mistaken
3) Since Obama had experience he could not (by definition) claim to be superior to McCain because he had no experience (like POTUS 45 did)
4) You do bring up an interesting separate issue: many insiders, like George W Bush, claim outsider status. I agree it is psychologically interesting, perhaps we can start another thread on that topic.