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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
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
Fronto temporal dementia
Neuropsychologist have been saying it since his first term.
https://youtu.be/9OtO-cypKmY
I'm all for the differently-abled having the same opportunities as everyone else, but this seems like a poor condition for the "leader of the 'free*' world" to have, right?
Yeah I agree.
Cognitive/psychological disabilities are a bit different than physical disabilities.
We can acknowledge that.
Someone without the ability to think or plan or even be aware of where they are shouldn't be in charge of other people's lives or livelihoods.
Yup. Equality is unhelpful in the real world past a certain point. It’s better to think of equitability instead. Colour blind people can become pilots, but their rating is limited according to the extent of their condition, such as being banned from night flying, or not being given a commercial licence. So they have equality in being allowed to train and to take the medical assessment, and equitability in being treated differently due to their specific circumstances rather than in general terms.
As there are already restrictions on who can be president, it’s not too much to ask that they also be of sound mind. The equitable (indeed only sane) thing would be for anyone with dementia to be immediately removed from the military chain of command.
As far as I'm concerned, disabled folks should be able to be hired to do any job that a normally-abled person can do, if they can do it with reasonable accommodations. But I'm going to have some questions if a blind person wants to do color grading, or if a nonverbal person is applying to be a live interpreter. The answer isn't no, but I do have some questions.
Those questions grow with the number of lives that are at risk. A potential surgeon who has a motor control disability is probably going to need a longer interview. An air traffic controller with sensory processing issues, even longer. A nuclear bomb technician with uncontrolled hallucinations, let's block out most of the day.
A really old guy with memory, processing, and concentration issues wants a job running a decent chunk of the whole world? A job that takes heightened focus and quick decision making, and that regularly burns out people half his age? A job that has a lot of handles on foreign and domestic policy, and the nuclear codes? I think we should probably spending a couple of months talking about that, and poring over his medical records.
And then we should hire someone else instead, because come on
Wouldn't that make the President a DEI hire?
Taught this term as a kid, in recent years saw complaints from the referenced community, wonder if choosing “disabled” is best for balance these days 🤷♂️