533
68-year-old congresswoman says she's retiring to 'set a better example' amid concern over aging politicians
(www.businessinsider.com)
this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
533 points (99.3% liked)
politics
19277 readers
2678 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
They are our fucking employees. We should be able to choose the terms of their employment. Seems like a pretty fundamental tenant of a fucking democracy to me.
We should have made a provision for National referendum For things like this.
Well, we cannot even stop them from insider training. Then there is the problem of all the legalized bribery....I would think age limits faces much more of an uphill battle, even without the moral quandary it poses.
What moral quandary? No one but pedophiles complains about the fact that age minimums for certain activities exist. Cognitive function is a bell curve and old people are on the back end of it. That's just a fact of life. What is controversial about it?
Well, with age also comes wisdom, so forcing people out when they might be hitting a stride is rather immoral (and foolish) if you ask me.
It'd be one thing if we were to start applying cognitive tests beyond a certain age...I'd hate to lose the likes of Bernie just based on a number. If someone is sharp and able-bodied well into their nineties or even later, what is the point in pushing them out?
But again, as I say, even this line of reasoning is rather static and fixed in time. This kind of discussion may age very badly if/when age extension/age reversal comes online, and I don't want us setting something up that will likely come off extremely anachronistic just based on one of the last remaining prejudices that, at this point in time, is still permissible and even fashionable in polite company - and that is ageism. The rules of government are rather famous for not keeping up with the times and it seems foolhardy to try to put something into place that may very quickly become ridiculous.
With age comes wisdom, but at our politician's ages, so do issues like dementia and Alzheimer's
Possibly, but also maybe not. You have to treat people as individuals. That's what cognitive testing would be good for, in any case.
Bernie is 83. He'll be 89 when he most likely retires. I say as long as he is of sound mind and body, I want people like him in there. If he was forced out at some arbitrary cutoff, we would have missed out on decades of his input.
Not everyone ages equally.
The idea is that we choose every election.
We could have more choices if we replaced First past the post voting by passing state level electoral reform.
But then the Democrats would have to actually compete for your vote so that's a hard pass.
We choose the person we don't choose the terms.
We most often don’t choose the person either. The parties usually decide for us who is even allowed to run.
It's for the best, otherwise someone might run as a Democrat that doesn't support their policies. /$
Which you choose when you vote in the primaries.
So, about that democratic presidential primary....
Biden won it. I don't think an incumbent president has ever lost their primary when running for re-election, at least not in modern times when they actually had primaries that people could vote in. It's on Biden for deciding to run again.
The parties get to decide who can run in the primaries
I used to think a candidate had to at least be a member of a party to run in its primaries, but Bernie corrected my misunderstanding.
Bernie joined the party. He had to in order to run as a Democrat. He later became independent again.
I kept hearing conflicting stories on whether he actually joined the party or only promised to become a Democrat if he won the candidacy.
Fortunately it’s a matter of public record and you don’t need to listen to stories.
Oh, then you mean there is some public record somewhere that he actually joined the Democratic party when he ran in the 2016 election? Maybe a registration form? (link?) Because I don't think he did. From what I read, he didn't actually join or register as a Dem, but the party didn't try to stop him from running as a Dem, and he just verbally said he was a Democrat when asked, which I guess was good enough.
According to this article, which goes through the timeline of his party affiliation(s), it wasn't until Bernie's 2020 run that the Democratic party formally wrote up a rule that a candidate had to be a member of the party, and only then did they require him and the other candidates to sign a document officially declaring themselves as Democrats.
This article, as best as I can tell, confirms that in 2016, he didn't actually join the Democratic party, but he stated Democratic party as his affiliation on the statement of candidacy for his political campaign, and also verbally said to people who asked that he was a Democrat.
Christ, that’s a lot of words to try to twist some meaningless point out of a difference in semantics.
So, no link to a public record then.
The problem is people like, "their," geriatric. Ed Markey is my Senator, and he says he'll be seeking reelection in two years when he'll be 80. Even though I think he's been a pretty good Senator, I want him to retire at the end of term, but I'm probably in the minority, and it will be an uphill battle to primary him if he doesn't choose to step down.
Only in the same way your landlord or your bank is your employee. The positions have been monopolized by a handful of cartel brokers and the real job of administering is in the hands of corporate lackeys puffed up through billions of dollars in sales and marketing. Liberal democracy has been defanged by market forces.
There's no such thing as a "national referendum", legally speaking. We don't vote on legislation, just on bureaucrats. And the bureaucrats we get to vote on are selected first by the donors, then by the party, and only finally by the general electorate.
Nobody we elect has any incentive to cap the age or number of terms they hold office. Why would they vote against their collective best interests?
It would still be age discrimination. The way to go is term limits.
If there can be a minimum age, there can be a maximum age.
How would it be age discrimination? There are plenty of fields where you are no longer able to work at a certain age such as being a pilot or air traffic control. If we can't trust a 70 year old pilot to fly a couple hundred people then why the hell can we trust a 70 year old politican to steer the entire country with policy?
Flying a plane just isn't analogous to being a politician though.
As in, if a politician has a heart attack or stroke it doesn't put hundreds of lives at a grave and imminent risk.
Politicans still hold millions of lives in their hands. Sure, if they kick the bucket there can always be a replacement before any damage is done but they need to be cognizant enough to make decisions. They can't be so old that they aren't able to keep up and adapt to new things.
I absolutely agree, which is why we shouldn't elect septuagenarians.
However, because there's no imminent threat to life involved, laws precluding their election would probably be discriminatory.
I don't think we're going to agree on this. I don't give a fuck if it hurts some old people's feelings. If you're over 65 you likely don't have the mental capacity to run a country and make decisions daily that affect the lives of everyone in said country. It flat out should not be a possibility for someone to make policy when they won't even be alive to see the consequences in 5-10 years. Even Bernie should not still be in congress, the man should be enjoying his retirement.
Again, I agree with everything you've just said, which is why we shouldn't elect septuagenarians.
Making a law against old people holding office is a whole other thing though. Laws about who can stand is antithetical to democracy.
There is no age limit for pilots. As long as you pass the health checks you can keep flying.
https://www.faa.gov/faq/what-maximum-age-pilot-can-fly-airplane
You can keep flying, just not commercially after 65.
We can do an article V convention to amend the constitution with these limits in order to circumvent DC politics entirely. But they will tell you that it’s an incredibly dangerous thing to do, and could cost us democracy itself!…I say we go for it anyway.