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.
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
view the rest of the comments
The problem isn't old people in office. I've known a lot of 80 year olds who are still with it mentally, and while they are slower physically they make up for it with their experience and wisdom.
But the problem is that not all older people are like this, so it's generally up to the politician themselves to decide when they're too old for it, and many of these people have egos which might prevent them from stepping back, ever. Combine this with the fact that the vast majority of seats are safe for one party or the other, and candidates are discouraged from running against incumbents in primaries, and someone who wins a Congressional seat at 40 or 50 can keep it for 30 (even 40) years, without having to face any meaningful opposition.
So, maybe we shouldn't have an upper age limit. However, we should take the stigma away from having a primary challenge. Every Federal election should have a meaningful primary. Does an 80 year old want to keep his seat? They should have to debate someone half their age, and perform well, to keep it. Nothing should be taken for granted.
I like the idea of primaries. As to debates, though - the way they are conducted (in the United States anyway) seems to be very problematic - comes down to quips and comebacks, talking over one another, going over allotted time, not really answering the questions and using prepared sound bites, and trying to go viral, all while lots and lots of logical fallacies are employed, and a populace that judges on the most arbitrary aspects of all this hot mess, such as who appeared to dominate or came off "strong", etc.
I wonder if there is some other way(s) to have candidates express their platforms during primaries. I honestly don't have a great answer for this. I suppose it still comes back to a rather tuned-out and generally clueless populace that will decide things largely based on "vibes" anyway...
Town halls work. Speeches, work. meeting with constituents in any of a dozen formats... works. hell, even an AMA somewhere.
Personally, we should replace debates with MarioKart64 competitions.
And I've known a lot of very wise 12 yo's in my time. Should we start letting 12yo's run for office? what about 22 yo's? what about a 32 yo president?
for someone whose 80, over half of their experience does not apply to the world we currently live in, anyway.
But half of their experience does, and the other half does give them context. (I would personally like it if more people in office today could remember what it was like to have fo fight in a war against fascists.) If they can offer a better vision than other candidates, and their voters are fully informed about their choices, I have no problem if voters send them back.
The problem comes when districts are manipulated to the point where the general election isn't competitive, and primaries against incumbents are also discouraged. That guarantees that if someone wins an election once, they can hold on to the seat as long as they want to, well past the point where they are relevant, because they will never have to face a contested election again. That's the real problem.
The context the irrelevant stuff offers…
…Does it tell them millennials are lazy because they can’t afford to have a family and own a house on a single income?
(Yes it does.)
…Does it tell them that being LGBTQ+ is wrong, immoral, and they should not have equal rights?
(Yes. It does)
…Has the experience of fighting fascists in a war stopped them from being fascist, or from supporting genocide?
(No. It does not.)
Now who's stereotyping based on age?
You can't assume that everyone who is 80+ holds these views, but if that person wants to run for office and represent you, then you absolutely have the right to ask them, and withhold your vote if they don't answer to your liking.
The problem is that there are no alternatives. That person can be blatant in their suckitude, and you have no other option, within the party or outside of it. People like this keep getting elected because the system is stacked towards incumbency. Once you get the gig in a safe district, it is basically a life appointment. It was never meant to be that way.
Did I say that? You are putting words into my mouth.
They are, however common views, and serve as an excellent example of how that “context” isn’t always a good thing.
If you’re gonna sit there and say anyone under x age is immature - and that’s exactly what you’re saying- then I get to say anyone over y age is decrepit.
And i think you understand that point. It doesn’t matter if it’s universally true- it’s true enough, on both sides the issue.