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.
- 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.
- 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
Need to get these old ghouls out of office and set maximum age limits for all positions of government
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.
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.
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.
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.
Great, they can be advisors or join think tanks or other organizations. Robert Reich has no power. I'm a huge Bernie fan but even I think he's too old.
Cognitive tests would be great. THANKS!
Too ripe for abuse by whoever sets the standard.
"Literacy" tests from the Jim Crow era South have very clearly demonstrated why these are not a good idea.
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.
Maximum Age at election = median life expectancy
If you want to serve longer, make people's lives better.