320
Pressure is on Newsom to quickly appoint Feinstein’s temporary replacement
(www.politico.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
320 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19096 readers
2413 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
Ageism is stupid, but recognizing the limits and needs of the upper limits of age related physiology isn't ageism.
We don't let 5 year olds run the country for the same reasons we shouldn't let 90 year olds. Is there an occasional exception that might actually make a decent leader? Absolutely! ...and frankly the 5 year old comparison stands there too - I'd take most 5 year olds over most of the current assholes running the world. But I digress - we shouldn't run shit like age barriers on the possibility of exceptions.
Another angle I don't see people talking about much here is that making someone work literally all the way to the grave, is fucking cruel. I get that these folks are power hungry wastes of oxygen who want to just occupy what would otherwise be useful space for as long as possible, but again, exception not rule.
Society has already decided on a general retirement age. Social Security age eligibility should be the cut off for all elected positions.
Man, you really want to raise the social security age that badly?
As long as someone has their cognizant abilities and is capable of doing the job and they want to do the job they should be able to do the job.
We as voters should be voting them out of the office if we don't like the job they're doing, or even if we feel they're out of touch with their constituency, but we shouldn't be excluding them from taking the job just because of their age.
I'm personally cool with that, but only if we have a system to process them as exceptions. Mental wellness checks, verification that they actually understand the things they're legislating - like iirc there was a recent story with a law maker who was handling some of Google's recent shenanigans, but let slip that didn't know what a browser is. He didn't have any mental disease that I'm aware of, he just didn't grow up around tech and found himself legislating on something he had zero understanding of as a product of his age.
We can't just rely on voters to vote them out - name recognition is and will continue to be a helluva drug. Also not every office is decided by voters.
We need to handle the age problem in politics. It doesn't have to be some heavy-handed "just kick out all the 65+ers!" shit, but our policy now is to just wait until they die, which is equally unacceptable.
Totally and completely agree with your take.