politics
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.
- 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.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Everyone in elected office over the age of 65 should be forced to retire. At best, they've done their duty and deserve to rest and enjoy the fruits of their labor. At worst, they're nonfunctional skeletons that don't even have skin in the game when it comes to government.
The most impactful reason for there being an upper limit on age for representatives is that they literally don’t have a personal stake in the future. Even if they have kids or whatever other platitudes they may try to push, obviously there are people making decisions now that are going to have mortal fallout for the next generation that they don’t give a shit about if they’re making money.
There's a lot of perfectly competent over-65s. There shouldn't be forced retirement, but forced screenings and physicals to ensure that serving politicians are still mentally fit to serve.
That is true, but then my second reason comes into play. Even if they are perfectly functional, they are at retirement age. Their stake in what government policies are formed goes down immensely. They have like 10-15 years left on average. Leave it to the people whose policies will actually affect them.
I'm sorry but your "stake" point is dumb.
"A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they shall never sit."
It's entirely possible for someone to be old and still thoroughly invested in future generations. You think grandparents can't care about their grandchildren's future just because they're old?
In my scenario I would look forward to these old men planting literal trees during their retirement then. Taking a page from Carter's book. Or if they do still want to be involved in politics, they can be aides, advisers, and lobbyists.
Dude, it's not necessarily referencing literal trees. Think a little harder. The "tree in whose shade they shall never sit" might be a better student loan plan, or free Healthcare, or a myriad of other things that a person couldn't accomplish if they were forced to retire.
I know what the saying means, that's why I put the end part about politics and said literal when it came to trees.
Any "trees" these guys wanted to build that they'll never see the shade of can be long before 65 and can be done in other none elected roles afterwards.
EDIT: More clarification
How would that be democratic? The vote is the way to retire someone and if you think he can't do the job, don't vote for him.
How is it democratic that you have to be 35 and a natural born citizen to be elected president? It may take a Constitutional amendment just like that, but I think it is a good idea regardless.
I don't. Should be any age or person as well. Few people would have the experience by that age so likely would make no difference lowering the age but regardless it should be 18 or just removed entirely.
Dumb take.
Dumb reply.
I bet you can't think of a single counter point.