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
Maybe we do some kind of public health indicators past 80 or something. I think it's rather foolish to have some arbitrary age limit, especially when there are plenty of incompetent people of any age.
The voters should be the ones make the choice, in any case. Unless someone is found to be incapacitated by some agreed-upon metric.
Hard age limits are the only practical workable system.
We already have age limits in place for elected offices - just lower age limits. We don't have someone fill out an IQ test to see if they're eligible to be president - we just say no one under 35 can be president.
Any medical or cognitive test you could give to potential candidates would be instantly gamed. We've seen this with literacy tests. There is no health or cognition metric you can use that won't be manipulated for political ends. Expect to see political ideologies declared mental illnesses, as has happened countless times through history.
No, hard age limits are the only way to go. Would banning presidents over 75 bar some perfectly qualified and capable people? Sure. But the under-35 limit has the same problem.
Thats an awful lot of work thats going to cost taxpayer money when “move over, gramps, let the next batch have a try” is completely free.
Who cares if there are still a couple good old people? There are also good young people chomping at the bit to take over. People who aren't hopelessly out of touch with reality and the rest of the population.
People shouldn't be in government past an age where they likely wont be alive for the next decade of consequences from their actions. I’d personally lower the cutoff to like 64. They got their chance to set policy, let people who will live in the world they are making be the ones who steer the boat.
If we try that and it ends up not working, we can reassess. But until we try we’ll never know because those people aim to die in office, and burn the place down on the way out.
That is an option the voters always have.
Honestly, I think the ageism thing is just red herring for the elites to use to further atomize the population.
No, we literally need to enforce a retirement age on elected offices. You can’t run once you hit retirement age.
Nah.
Could not disagree more. The generational warfare stuff is such bullshit.
Most especially as people are living longer and longer. We need people that have a longer view in there for sure. Older people - with the right amount of empathy and insight - have a lot to offer, especially if they have kids and grandkids. Pushing people out prematurely is rather stupid, if you ask me.
I'd be okay with lowering the age requirements for certain offices - at least where most people have a fully-developed PFC, anyway. In addition, there would be a huge benefit if more effort was put into raising up more leaders within the party, etc. More of a pipeline and more handoffs so there is not some big disconnect, but more of a continuity.
The party should not decide. When the party decides, they work for big business and undermine the democratic process. Politicians should be chosen by voters who elect them. In the case of recent presidential primaries the party has put their thumb on the scale to undermine voters. The party establishment is the problem.
They even failed to remove Biden from running for a second term. He had to drop out after a donor pulled funding. This showed that the people in charge of the party are not the politicians, but the donors. It was pathetic and the party should be treated as an extension of their rich donors. I don’t have a billion dollars, do you?