Need to get these old ghouls out of office and set maximum age limits for all positions of government
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
381 points (97.3% liked)
politics
19149 readers
3948 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think it's clear that people can be disconnected from reality no matter how old they are, and that older people are not excluded from being insightful and valuable to the political process (think Bernie Sanders and Robert Reich).
It's easy to feel like elminating older people from politics is a solution, but it's not. Voting for good people who actually represent your interests and the interests of your community is a better solution, but that's harder to think about.
You can't vote people into office who are younger when your only viable choices are people who are all over the age of 65.
Maybe, but Kentuckians have been voting against their own best interests for years.
Sounds like Kentuckians like to suffer. I say this as a Texan and my fellow Texans love to suffer and constantly vote against their own best interests.
Kentucky is inflicting their suffering on everyone else though, since McConnell was the reason for the shift in scotus by denying and then rushing appointments through the Senate.
I don’t disagree. What happens in Tx also has ramifications elsewhere. It’s just apparent loads of people in both states vote against their own interests and as a result vote against the interests of people out of their state. Until we get more people to vote in all elections the few will decide for the majority.
Looking at the last stats for Texas during the midterm elections in 2022 sat at 45% of over 17 million registered voters. In a state with over 30 million people, that means 8 million people decided those elections. Statewide and local elections voter turnout are abysmal. Last I checked for where I’m living it hovers between 11-13%. So if Texans vote against their best interests, I feel it’s the choice few making horrible decisions that impact the majority. A quick google search for Kentucky shows similar numbers. 41% voter turnout for midterms and it was lower than normal. The older bloc vote and the youth always stay in when looking at the numbers. Why would any older person vote for someone younger and less “wise to the world” in their eyes. If we want younger elected officials then we have to get the younger voters to engage and vote as well. At least that’s my opinion. McConnell keeps getting elected because younger voters don’t vote if they don’t feel represented by who is running. They opt to sit out, which is the worst thing to do. That’s what I’ve heard my peers say when I ask if they voted. If they don’t like what they see politically they just disengage.
Keep in mind that Texas and Kentucky have a lot of voter suppression going on, so low voter turnout is even worse than it would be from just apathy.
So yeah, they vote against their own interests but votes foe their own interests are lower than they should be.
... that's harder to think about.
I would agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that there is also a minimum age for office. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a grown adult is considered too young to serve then these geriatric ghouls are too old in my opinion.
Minimum for president is 35, senate is 30, house is 25. For one, I think those ages are "sufficiently youthful" to be generally representative of current modern concerns, all other things aside. They could easily be some years younger, possibly eliminated entirely, on the same basis as there is not a current upper age limit: let people be elected on their individual merits, and not exclude people on the basis of age.
I agree that there being a minimum age limit without an upper limit is contradictory, but a better solution would be to lower or eliminate the minimum. Perhaps some other kind of metric could be employed in place of a minimum age limit for federal office, like "having served as an elected official at the State level for two years."
I'd be okay requiring someone to serve as an elected official prior to serving in the House or Senate. Hell, I'd probably support mandatory public service for most if not all people for a period of time.
Logically, if you’re a candidate from any party, that knows they won’t be around in a decade’s time, what incentive, responsibility, or obligation do you REALLY have to do what’s best for ALL citizens— Including those who’ll be around for a few more decades. Especially regarding decisions with society-changing implications that’ll impact generations of change. It’s such a staggering conflict of interest that it’s not reasonable to expect any politician to set it aside.
That is even setting aside the obvious statistical likelihood that people over the age of 65 are significantly more likely to contract ailments that will impair their judgement and therefore their ability to do their job like Alzheimers (the exact same parroted reason for the minimum age requirement, that young people’s brains are not fully developed, and therefore are not able to perform the job adequately). If we’re going to arbitrarily set a minimum, we should be obligated to set a maximum.
Cognitive tests would be great. THANKS!
Too ripe for abuse by whoever sets the standard.
Even that can be fraught with danger. Who creates, administers, judges those tests? We already see bias issues in standardized testing for students.
There are already such tests and they were created by neurologists and backed by studies.
"Literacy" tests from the Jim Crow era South have very clearly demonstrated why these are not a good idea.
Those were for voting, not candidacy, AFAIK. Not that candidicy would have been any more fair then...
Maximum Age at election = median life expectancy
If you want to serve longer, make people's lives better.
My suggestion in another thread was if it's 18 years after birth to vote then it should be 18 years before average lifespan to lose the right to vote.
these crusty old farts need to retire. their dumbass voters keep reelecting them so it looks like it will take retirement or death to get rid of them.
load more comments
(10 replies)
After telling a friend of mine about the Mitch McConnell incident yesterday, and he replied, “Him and (Diane) Feinstein gonna get a little cabin together and just see out their years on the porch?
This gave me an idea. I had my other buddy who frequents Midjourney prompt it with “Mitch McConnell and Dianne Feinstein sitting on a cabin porch on a couple of rocking chairs staring out into the sunset”
The result? Perfection.
That’s too nice of an ending for that toxic turtle asshole.
He’s made the lives of many people fucking miserable and doesn’t deserve a sunset ending.
And Diane is hindering actual progress being made holding a seat she doesn't even do the work for. More accurate if they were sitting there with the world on fire not a lovely sunset.
I certainly don’t disagree. It’s more imagery of wishful thinking that they would fuck off into the sunset than anything. 😞
Yeah, I understand.
I wish they’d fuck off into the centre of the sun as well.
That fuck doesn't deserve a decent retirement
Oh you did not, lol. 😭
Before anyone gets too excited: while Kentucky does have a Democratic governor, under (recently amended) state law, if McConnell's seat goes vacant, the governor doesn't get to pick his replacement but only gets to choose from a list of 3 candidates submitted by the state GOP.
The US is truly the bastion of democracy
Boooooooo!
Incredible out in the open fascism from the Kentucky GOP when they amended that law. Just like desatan and him changing the governorship law so he could fail at a presidential run.
Just flat out steamrolling democracy. Enemies of the people.
load more comments
(1 replies)
And for anyone thinking this is a partisan issue, it's not.
EXACTLY. Diane Feinstein is in the same damn boat. Both her and Mitch could have fucked off into the sunset with plenty of retirement money YEARS ago, so it seems pretty clear to me the only reason they’re clinging on is power, and maybe hubris.
Get all these geriatrics out of office and put age limits on all public officials. This is such a farce.
I don't think he's neurologically capable of speaking for himself after yesterday. Get a power of attorney.
Honestly I do feel like people get too old at some point to be in power positions, but instead of just having a strict age limit like a lot of people are saying here, there should just be some positions that have this limitation. They could still work as advisors and such, as long as they don't have the last word.
People like Bernie Sanders for example can provide a lot of insight and have lots of experience in the field which is useful. But to have someone that could potentially die from taking a wrong step as a leading figure is a bit silly.
people: you should resign because of cognitive malfunction
us establishment: <hides in a bush>
Edit: had to escape the tags so they're shown 🤔
Of course the MAGAts are calling for him to resign, they're nearly as mad at him as the Democrats! I'm not sure what it's going to take for voters to wake up and stop re-electing these geriatric politicians but it needs to happen. We can't move forward as a nation with all of these oldsters clinging to power and applying yesterdays thoughts and solutions to today's problems.
It is going to take a viable alternative. There should be a guaranteed primary every election, open to all voters, or better something like ranked choice.
The incumbent is essentially running unopposed.
view more: next ›