1054
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] CoolSouthpaw@lemmy.world 128 points 11 months ago

Thank fuck. She was such a fucking piece of shit to be hogging her office like that when she was clearly too old and senile. Good riddance!

[-] Poteryashka@lemmy.ml 66 points 11 months ago

Can't make her own decisions so needed to give power of attorney to her daughter, but can make decisions that would impact millions of Americans and international politics

[-] Milksteaks@midwest.social 49 points 11 months ago

The most based take here. Get these old fucks that couldnt possibly represent us out. Term limits and age limits are needed badly, and these fossils need to get the fuck out of office and let new blood in

[-] WHYAREWEALLCAPS@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago

Not a fan of term limits, but age limits absolutely. Once you're old enough to get social security, your time as an elected or appointed official is done. And no, we should not allow people to run who will age out while in office.

[-] Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 months ago

65 is way too low, especially an effective 59 while running. Just make it 80, with an effective 74 for candidates. There are plenty of highly capable 70 year olds.

[-] payzdom@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 months ago

Sure there are plenty of capable 70 year olds, but mid to late 70s is where dramatic health changes is very short periods of time and diminished mental capacity starts to be commonplace. 65 as an age limit to run (meaning the oldest senators could be 71) makes a lot of sense.

[-] Thief_of_Crows@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago

I feel like any lower than absolutely necessary is a problem, because of how important gaining power within the Senate is. Its uncommon to become a senator before age 50 (currently 10 are under 50), and it can take 2-3 terms before you get to be head of committees. I think you could make the hard limit 75 to run, with anyone over 70 subject to some sort of yearly test both physical and mental, the results of which are public. 75 because they'll still retire at age 80 that way. As long as they can prove competency, we should let the most experienced people take the reins.

[-] melechric@lemmy.world 36 points 11 months ago

It was painfully apparent she was confused after returning to the Senate earlier in the year. This is a clear-cut case of manipulation. Also elder abuse.

[-] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 26 points 11 months ago

I'm just going to throw this out there: if she was too old and senile, was she actually in control or was she being controlled?

[-] CoolSouthpaw@lemmy.world 21 points 11 months ago

Both, kinda. I think she was too gone at the end to know where she even was, but she still should have stepped aside YEARS ago when she was lucid enough to know she was declining. Again, she's still a fucking piece of shit cunt for not doing so.

[-] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago

She wasn't even aware she had been MIA for 6 months earlier this year

this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
1054 points (99.1% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3487 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS