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
I'd be for a cognitive exam. Ideally screening out various personality disorders, too.
But this thread is riddled with the usual ageist tropes and stuff about term limits. None of which will fix anything about our broken system.
Having some hard-coded age put into our legal system is bound to end badly. First of all, what is considered the typical years of health span I expect to change, most especially for the higher class (even if America's health advances stall out thanks to the Republicans, other countries will continue forward and the upper echelons will definitely have access to such care). Secondly, even if it doesn't, the typical years of health span vary wildly person to person. Telling someone at 73 they are too old to do the job, apropos of nothing else but the number of times they have been around the sun? That's just plain stupid and it should be up to the voters to decide that.
Fuck no... Just because the rich killed a bunch of people and hoarded all of the medicine for themselves does not mean because they live longer they should be in charge.
I don't think anyone would necessarily be hoarding anything; I'm just pointing out that health spans are likely to change as things advance. Maybe the average American might lag a bit behind the top 10% or so, but I very much doubt that these people will be aging the same way that people age now or ten years ago.
Setting some hard-coded thing now will be hard to change later to adapt with the times.
The problem is that as people age cognitive decline can be rapid. You elect somebody at 70 with no symptoms for a 6 year term. By 73 you get this type of issue.
A cognitive test would only work if it was administered yearly. If they show signs of cognitive decline they are immediately relieved of duties. You'd have to set up an independent body of physicians to administer the test and have the physician chosen at random to prevent shenanigans. The rich and powerful would still find a way to rig the system.
Or you can just set rules to prevent the issue.
64 is the oldest anyone can run for office and 70 is mandatory retirement age for all positions in government service. Yes some people still have a lot of life left in them at that age They can do something else.
As we've seen over and over again one dement old person in a position of power can cause pain and suffering or even the loss of life to millions.
I have a friend who retired from government service at 58 after 35 years. He then started his own business now at 79 it's large and prosperous. Just because he "retired" doesn't mean he stopped being of value to society. Hell his business has more impact now that he ever did in his government job.
Unfortunately old age is starting to catch up with him. He had a mild stroke last year and his brain isn't what it used to be.
Every one of those aholes that want to run for office should take a basic science exam.
When there are legislators getting all het up about chem trails I know we're going down the drain.
I'd get behind this 100%. Maybe throw in some screening for things like the dark triad and a basic test on critical thinking as well.
Well there's age limits v. term limits.
I think term limits are definitely reasonable, regardless of age. We don't need one person in a specific government role indefinitely.
Age limits, I'm kind of inclined to agree that would be hard to pin down. Frankly 73 is a bit young in my experience to be as far gone as John Kennedy seemed to be. Certainly it drops off and drops off suddenly at some point for people, but you do have people into their 90s with their cognition intact. Bernie Sanders is in his 80s and he seems mentally still there.
I've just never seen a very compelling case for term limits. I don't think they'll fix anything and in my anecdotal experience, the most prominent supporters tend to be rightwing cranks, so it makes me all the more suspect of the idea.
It's one of those things that might sound really good to say, especially when someone has just had it up to here with the outcomes of legalized bribery and a corrupt government in the hands of incompetents and radicalized right wingers.
And yeah, when it comes to things like healthspan, I am not a fan at all of trying to apply some upper bound on age, especially when we may be poised on a revolution in things related to aging. Our government is already famously slow in catching up to other developments, this would be yet another where we are ushering people out of job long before it makes sense....
Right now, the most ardent term limit hopes are against Trump. I also see people here all the time clamoring for Congressional term limits, either to get some of the GOP out or to make more room for progressive candidates on the Democrat side. Without term limits things can get too stagnant.
Even if people get to be as perfectly healthy at 90 as they were at 30, without term limits you could have some pretty bad situations with the same politicians in the same offices for decades and decades. Even with term limits there's plenty of political positions across the municipal, district, state, federal levels to move between to build a very long and useful political career.