1054
Dianne Feinstein dies at 90
(abc7news.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
1054 points (99.1% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2008 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It shouldn't be allowed, by having term limits for all members of Congress and possibly an age cap. I would be OK with an age cap of 75 for anyone running for election, with exceptions for those who are already in office and surpass that age. After their term ends past age 75 they must retire. Term limits.... maybe 2 or 3 terms, not sure
75 is too high. I'd do 65 at most.
Make it more scientifically oriented, peg it to the average age of noticeable mental decline caused by aging, at present that's still mid to late 60s but it'll feel less "arbitrary"
Unfortunately, anything that isn't a hard number is just going to turn into a political cluster fuck.
"What does 'noticable' mean? Let's argue this for 30 years and never come to a decision."
The best way to "future" proof it would be to make the age get lower every decade until another constitutional amendment is passed.
Well with mental decline there's actual diagnostic standards that can be applied to determine the statistical average.
Like I said, we already have a general range, and a more precise number which can flex as statistics change wouldn't be that much harder to achieve.
I believe putting it under standards of medical and mental diagnosis protects it once it's set in as a norm, a number is just a number, but a calculated number based on medical statistics exposes anyone challenging it to accusations of trying to weaken the government by opening the door for people in mental decline to cling on to power.
Agree. There are actual cognitive tests that exists today and that's used by medical personnel.
They could be purpose to test those in office as they get older, the same way that pilots have to get tested medically to maintain their license.
Well with mental decline there's actual diagnostic standards that can be applied to determine the statistical average.
Like I said, we already have a general range, and a more precise number which can flex as statistics change wouldn't be that much harder to achieve.
I believe putting it under standards of medical and mental diagnosis protects it once it's set in as a norm, a number is just a number, but a calculated number based on medical statistics exposes anyone challenging it to accusations of trying to weaken the government by opening the door for people in mental decline to cling on to power.
Maybe so, I was trying to be generous
Tie it inversely to the retirement age, start at 65:65.
IMO we cap those running to where you cant run if your term would end if your age would be over 70. Ex: presidents can run at age 66, but not 67 because their age would put them at 71 at the end of their term