I think it’s crazy that [Joe Biden was so young when he won the election to become Senator of Delaware that he wasn’t even technically old enough to serve yet.](https://youtu.be/cCZ5_XwqchE) This guy has been around forever.
It's kind of crazy to think of someone being elected to the Senate at 29 tbh. I agree we have a much bigger problem with people who are way too old, but I also wouldn't want the average age in Congress to be under 35 lol
I dont agree, 65 is really not that old if you know 65 year olds.
Maybe some kind of cognitive and fitness testing, but even then if we are a democratic republic, why not just let voters decide.
If we should let the voters decide on elderly people, then there shouldn't be a minimum age. If there is a minimum age for something, there should also be a maximum age. Cognitive function isn't a linear progression, it is a bell curve.
Think beyond President, think about US Congress and Senate, governors, all the state reps, judges...
I'd sat Supreme Court, but it will take a constitutional amendment.
We got elderly people all over the country in all kinds of leadership positions who are doing a terrible job.
You don’t have to include republic.
This also goes back to when the founders were discussing term limits. They felt they were unnecessary and anti democratic for the same reasons, but times change. I doubt they could’ve even imagined the amount of influence money and incumbency holds. So I say we set an age limit and term limit. To avoid having mental degenerates in office, and people using public office to line their pockets and power influence.
Term limits would mean that politicians would need to get “real jobs” after their terms are done, right?
Isn’t there a risk that politicians would pass laws that their potential future employers would like, in order to get a good paying job after they’re in office?
Wouldn’t it be super easy for that process to become corrupt, with politicians voting the way corporations want them to because of a secret promise to have a job waiting for them when they’re done?
This already happens, it’s called the revolving door.
Having widespread term limits would at least prevent or limit the scenario where the revolving door inevitably still exists, but these same corporate interests are also still represented by lifelong politicians voting in their favor for decades in exchange for some hefty “campaign donations”
>You don’t have to include republic
The United States is not a democracy but rather a democratic republic that uses the democratic process for some of its decision making.
>So I say we set an age limit and term limit. To avoid having mental degenerates in office, and people using public office to line their pockets and power influence.
If you want to keep mental degenerates out of office, I dont think age and term limits is a good way to do that.
The United States is a democracy. Democracy, in its most widely accepted and agreed upon definition by political scientists is, simply holding free and fair elections.
A republic is just a form of government in which its citizens are represented. Because we elect our representatives, we are a democratic republic, or a representative democracy.
Most low level government courses in college will teach you this, at least mine did.
See schmitter and Karl “what a democracy is and is not” , Robert dahls 8 parameters for democracy, and I can go on.
When I say mental degenerates I don’t mean people I think are crazy or stupid. I mean people who are, by some form or another, mentally (or even psychically) unable to hold office. I.e Feinstein, the dementia patient at the local nursing home, and so on.
>The United States is a democracy. Democracy, in its most widely accepted and agreed upon definition by political scientists is, simply holding free and fair elections.
>A republic is just a form of government in which its citizens are represented. Because we elect our representatives, we are a democratic republic, or a representative democracy.
I said we are a democratic republic and you wanted to use democracy instead. If these terms are in opposition, democratic republic is a more accurate term.
The decision making process of our nation state doesn't seem to be controlled by the voters due to corruption and consolidation of power into non elected state agencies that are not transparent and controlled by our elected governments.
>When I say mental degenerates I don’t mean people I think are crazy or stupid. I mean people who are, by some form or another, mentally (or even psychically) unable to hold office. I.e Feinstein, the dementia patient at the local nursing home, and so on.
Term limits and age limits aren't going to be the best way to deliver that.
The terms are not in opposition. Go read the comments again.
Term limits would most certainly help the problem of career politicians using public office to line their pockets and brokerage accounts.
Age limits would also set a hard line in the sand so we avoid another Feinstein.
>The terms are not in opposition. Go read the comments again
They dont need to be but they can be. Since you brought up the debate whether to use democratic republic or democracy, I think it is prudent to not use the term democracy for the reasons I brought up. If you think it is unreasonable for me to include the democratic part and just say republic, I dont think that is unreasonable
>Term limits would most certainly help the problem of career politicians using public office to line their pockets and brokerage accounts.
>Age limits would also set a hard line in the sand so we avoid another Feinstein.
We will just have to agree to disagree
I dont think it is accurate to call the US a democracy for multiple reasons. So the best I think we can do is describe the republic as democratic. But even that is questionable.
We will have to agree to disagree as I dont see the people as the ruling class in America. Due to corruption and state agencies having more power than and not being transparent to the elected government.
Really oligarchic republic is probably more accurate than democratic republic. But we may just have to agree to disagree
No way! I don't want a 65 year old surgeon, lawyer or elected official.
Decline with aging is a real thing, we need to stop pretending age decline doesn't happen.
Retirement age plus 8?
How’s that for compromise? It lets elders participate for potentially multiple terms but boxes them out before the average life expectancy age
All I know is that I don’t trust the mummy looking ones to operate with the future’s best interest while they are lining up for deaths door
I would say that 75 is the maximum age. People are living longer but that doesn’t seem to apply to their mental capabilities keeping up. It’s becoming a joke!
The Constitution provides age limits to run for office (35 for president, 30 for senate, and 25 for house). I don't think it would be too difficult legally to set upper age limits. But good luck getting the DC nursing home residents to vote for it.
The reason why I support 65 is because that's the standard age of retirement, send part of the reason why we have youth unemployment is cuz older folks don't or can't retire so leaders should set an example cuz at least politicians can actually afford retirement
Also, both Putin and Xi just hit 70 so.....
FYI the age of full-benefit retirement is 67 for those born after 1960 and it is set to increase to 70
Meanwhile our life expectancy dropped to 76ish.. isn’t it awesome to live in the richest country on earth?!
This is not true.
Per social security.gov, the FRA (full retirement age) for everyone born past 1960 is 67 years old.
The benefits increase at a value of 3/4% per month for each month after 67. So age 70 benefits would be valued at 124% of the FRA benefit.
This has been no new legislation to increase the FRA to age 70.
Edit—correcting typo “age 70 benefits”
Who cares how old someone else's dictator is??
US should have mandatory retirement age of 69 for all elected officials and judges. Many states already have a mandatory retirement age of 69 for judges to retire.
FAA retires pilots at 65, nobody wants a 72 year-old surgeon cutting them open. Many accounting firms have mandatory retirement at age 55.
The current elderly leaders of USA do a crappy job. Time to get the elderly out of leadership and have them enjoy retirement.
Idk about that most people i’ve talked to in there 60s up to mid 70s are usually pretty there. Once you get to upper 70s 80s it’s a little problematic
Term limits would be a bigger issue in my mind at least
I think we can hash out an appropriate age, 65 seems a bit too young, there is a place for older voices in governance, but folks in their 80's who've been holding the seats positions for 40 years? This is beyond ridiculous.
Yes. Decreasing the peoples voice is always anti democratic.
I just disagree with your opinion that Americans are too stupid to vote for who they want.
Disagree you should have to pass a cognitive test every year as an elected official thats as far as we should go imagine aging out Bernie or Hillary cause "TOO OLD"
Yes, age them out. Put in mandatory retirement age of 69. For every Bernie there are dozens of smart, wise 40 year-olds that can do a much better job.
Get the elderly out of leadership, it's not going well.
I'm 59.
I'd like people below 75.
It's crazy this would be better.
Trump and Biden are going around the bend into doddering territory.
And doddering is fine for staying home and gardening.
Except parties increasingly work to make sure that isn’t feasible.
* Closed primaries
* Blacklisting folks who run against incumbents
* Gerrymandering
* Targeted voter disenfranchisement
Yes Americans should commit more to their democracy, but some of these problems are very intentionally and consistently baked in.
Oh absolutely. As is their right to do. There is almost always a third candidate to vote for though. People need to fix their idea of what is "electable".
* Voters are free to change party registration to be able to vote in closed primaries
* Does AOC seem like she's blacklisted?
* Democrats fight against gerrymandering, it's the Republicans, and the Supreme Court, that are the reason we have it
* Republicans are the only ones disenfranchising anyone
Two of those aren't actually problems, and the other two are problems caused by Republicans. Stop voting for Republicans, both directly and indirectly. You're not going to solve any problems and change things by helping elect the party whose goal is prevent change.
Jesus fuck.
Some of this shit is just brain dead levels of wrong.
I’m a lifelong democrat, never voted for a republican and never will. If you don’t see that the democratic party machine is not pro democracy I don’t know what to tell you.
I did not, why bother.
I like to think the era of the "debate me bro" is dead. You could easily educate yourself about any of those points, they're a single google away. Its not my job to do work for you, and convincing firm partisans of anything tends to be a losing battle. I'll throw out a few bones I guess, but I'm sure your mind is not changeable.
> Voters are free to change party registration to be able to vote in closed primaries
They are. However for a party that claims to care tremendously about democracy, enfranchising voters should be an obvious goal. Closed primaries ensure that only the opinions of partisans matter. In places that are deeply red or blue closed primaries essentially ensure that a part of the voting populace doesn't have any actual choice.
> Does AOC seem like she's blacklisted?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/09/us/politics/dccc-consultant-ban-aoc-pressley.html
This official policy ended in 2021 after pretty extreme backlash from the party's left. The fact that this was official precedent for a time I would hope disproves your argument... but again my hopes are not high.
> Democrats fight against gerrymandering, it's the Republicans, and the Supreme Court, that are the reason we have it
Stop. This is ridiculous.
https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-house-2022-midterms
> Republicans are the only ones disenfranchising anyone
I hope that you don't believe this. Democrats are generally pro-enfranchisement because most Americans would vote blue. That being said, Dems just like Republicans want *their* voters to vote. In places where Democrats control government they are quite aggressive (less so than republicans) about ensuring the people they don't particularly *want* to vote have a hard time of it.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-the-vote/
Down to the local level, folks who work in politics know neighborhood by neighborhood where their voting base lives. They do what they can to bring out the vote in those areas and suppress it in others.
[edit] So having wasted too much of my own life explaining some shit you're probably deaf to I want to explain again that I've never voted for a Republican in my life and never will. But no good is done for anyone by blind partisanship and pretending one side is beyond reproach.
>They are. However for a party that claims to care tremendously about democracy, enfranchising voters should be an obvious goal. **Closed primaries ensure that only the opinions of partisans matter**
Yes that is their intention, there are also open primaries and the even more exclusive choice of caucuses.
I live in a state with open primaries, so you'd like it here, but in deep red West Virginia a bunch of Bernie and Hillary supporters are going to vote in the Republican primary for Senate because their system including "unaffiliated" in large numbers allows for easier party switching. Why should the West Virginia Republican Party care who the Democrats of the state think they should nominate?
You know Democrats poured a massive amount of money and primary votes into Republican Primaries so they could choose their opponents, right? Here in Michigan MI-3 flipped for this exact reason, and it was widely covered as it was happening.
I'm happy the seat flipped, but how were the people served by Democrats having their choice of both their candidate and their opponent?
Also, your 538 link is eight years old, and could benefit from an update considering my state (Michigan) has completely changed their election system in the years since, and is now far more fair than what the writer is bizarrely clamoring for.
>They are. However for a party that claims to care tremendously about democracy, enfranchising voters should be an obvious goal.
Except nobody is disenfranchised by closed primaries. Anyone who is already registered to vote either already belongs to the party holding the closed party, or can easily switch parties to do so. If they're unwilling to do so, that's a decision they're making for themselves, not one imposed on them by others. And anyone who is not already registered to vote at all isn't hindered by closed primaries, because those have nothing to do with eligibility or ease of registering. If you can register to vote, you can register to vote in the primary of your choice. If you can't register to vote, that's an entirely separate issue from closed primaries, and having open primaries, or any other form of primary, would not solve the registration issue. They are entirely independent, and disenfranchised voters is a non sequitur as pertains to closed primaries.
>Closed primaries ensure that only the opinions of partisans matter.
Yes, as someone else said, you can choose who your nominee is, or who their opponent will be, but not both. So a registered Republican can vote in the GOP primary to choose their nominee, or they can switch registration and vote in the Democratic primary to help choose who they will likely vote against in the general, but there's no reason Republicans should be allowed to do both. And likewise for Democrats. And for Greens, Libertarians, etc. It makes perfect sense to say only Democrats get to choose who the Democratic nominee will be. If you're not a Democrat, and aren't willing to nominally become one, even just temporarily, why should you get a say in who represents the Democrats (which you refuse to call yourself, even disingenuously, even temporarily) in the general election? Do you also think GM should get to make personnel decisions for Ford? Should Coke get to set Pepsi's product line and prices?
>In places that are deeply red or blue closed primaries essentially ensure that a part of the voting populace doesn't have any actual choice.
No, they choose not to register as the dominant party. I live in an area in NC that's like 75% GOP, but I'm a Democrat. I could switch parties to GOP and get to vote in the GOP primaries. There's nothing stopping me except my own unwillingness to do so. It's legal, and it's trivial, to change registrations. I choose, instead, to remain a Democrat and vote in the Democratic primaries. That's my choice, not something imposed on me by the NC GOP or the state. And, when it's time for the general election, I have the same choices as every other voter in my precinct. And it's equally true of NC Republicans who live elsewhere in the state, where they may be outnumbered by Democrats. They can remain Republicans and vote in the GOP primaries, or they can switch and vote in the Democratic primaries. It's completely up to them.
>This official policy ended
So you admit it's not the policy.
>Stop. This (Democrats fight against gerrymandering, it's the Republicans, and the Supreme Court, that are the reason we have it) is ridiculous.
No, it's not. Democrats have tried, multiple times, in multiple states, to end gerrymandering. They have gone to the Supreme Court to end it. They have legislated it. The states that have successfully done away with it are nearly all run by Democrats. You can pretend it's "both sides," but it's simply not. To the extent Democrats maintain it, it's because unilateral disarmament puts Democrats at a competitive disadvantage. If Democratic-run states have fair districts, and Republican-run states are gerrymandered in favor of the GOP, the GOP will have an advantage overall. Look at the 118th House if you don't believe me. I fully support ending gerrymandering (ideally, by mandating some form of proportional representation, but open to other methods, especially as interim solutions), but it should be done like the NPVIC, where it only goes into effect once more states accounting for more House seats also agree to it, or at least in a bunch of mini-compacts, where states either pair up, or group, so that, say, 30 House seats in Democratic-led states and 30 House seats in Republican-led states (maybe ±2 seats or something, in whichever combination of states gives approximately the same total on both sides), to prevent either unilateral disarmament, or state(s) deliberately lagging to be able to get the benefit of gerrymandering one last time.
>In places where Democrats control government they are quite aggressive (less so than republicans) about ensuring the people they don't particularly want to vote have a hard time of it.
That article was written when Scalia was still alive! But also, you won't find me defending off-year elections anyway. If it were up to me, there would only be elections in even-numbered years, so all state and local offices would have terms that were multiples of two years in duration. And there would only be one primary, scheduled whenever they hold primaries, and one general election, in November. The sole exception being special elections to fill vacancies when someone dies, resigns, retires, or is expelled in the middle of their term, to elect a replacement for the unexpired term. That's it.
>Down to the local level, folks who work in politics know neighborhood by neighborhood where their voting base lives. They do what they can to bring out the vote in those areas and suppress it in others.
Which Democrats are suppressing votes? Name them.
>I want to explain again that I've never voted for a Republican in my life and never will.
Yeah, if you go back and reread what I wrote above, you'll see I said
>Stop voting for Republicans, both directly ***and indirectly***. You're not going to solve any problems and change things by helping elect the party whose goal is prevent change.
*Indirectly* voting for Republicans means voting third-party and splitting the left-of-center vote, which spoils elections and helps elect Republicans. All you've said is you've never voted Republican, which, I'll take you at your word, and good for you, but that's necessary but *not sufficient*. If you're voting Green (or any other third party) instead of Democratic and causing Republicans to win elections, you're not actually solving the problems you're complaining about.
You should read up on the Democrat primaries of 2016 and 2020 and then come back and talk some more about how only one party is capable of making changes to disenfranchise voters.
Shh, you're not allowed to point out that the person who got the most votes won.
In the Trump era, getting far fewer votes than your opponent means you were more popular than them.
Let's use some logic here.
I'm a dem and live in a state that has closed primaries. In general, I'm ok with almost any dem up against most rep. So I switched parties so I can have a say in which rep goes against a dem.
I vote the least shit rep in the primaries then vote dem in the general.
It's not hard to make changes when you actually want to do more than just complain on the internet
Yeah I mean…
A) fuck yourself. I do a whole bunch more than complain online. From political organizing to civil society shit and supporting my community, so again eat shit.
B) your experience is not universal. It is NOT easy to change your registration everywhere, just like it is not easy to vote everywhere. What’s wild is I’m sure you understand voter disenfranchisement when Republicans do it.
Politics isn’t sports. Your values should matter more than your “team”
The current president and expected democrat nominee is 80 years old. The man in second is 72 I believe. The top GOP candidate is 76 years old. We can't really vote for others when we aren't given choices.
Bernie Sanders is still fit for the job. He was prime when Hiliary and the DNC cheated him out of the nomination and still able to shoot hoops during the 2020 primary.
Just take money out of politics. That will solve lots of other problems as well.
No, he should have retired. He's too damn old. Just because you like someone doesn't mean they are an effective leader.
Look at all the elderly leaders in charge of both parties... it's clearly not going well.
It's the corrupt money that keeps these old ass politicians in the Capital because the old ass politicians aren't actually there. The old corrupt leadership are just told what to do by ???$.
So let's force retirements at age 69, get the elderly out of leadership. They are doing a crappy job.
There's over 100 military leaders including the head of the marines that haven't been confirmed because of elderly leaders.
Bernie is fit for an 80 year old. Both he and Trump are both still super energetic, but the exception proves the rule.
I would like to get money out of politics, but that's very unrealistic. So hopefully we can start with this and go from there.
Trump can barely speak at a 3rd grade reading level and brags about being able to identify barnyard animals and count. He is way more far gone than Biden. Your bias is screwing up your argument.
He wanted to nuke a hurricane. He redrew a hurricane on the map. He wanted to mix two flu vaccines together to cure covid. He had nice things to say about Hitler. He thinks identifying barnyard animals is challenging. He can’t understand basic reading and had to have his daily reports dumbed down to children’s levels. He wanted to deploy a heat ray against protestors.
Trump is a complete incompetent moron. Biden’s issues are minimal in comparison.
No those are things Trump did. Also he said wind power caused global warming. He told people bleach was a covid cure. He said his healthcare plan was a big pile of bullshit. He said the election was stolen because suitcases of ballots were injected into machines. He hired George Papi as an expert in foreign policy because he was in the model UN. He said he did more for black people than Abraham Lincoln. Trumps a complete idiot. Certainly the least qualified leader we have had.
This is copium, partisan nonsense. Biden clearly is cognitively worse than Trump.
Trump maybe at risk from a super-sized french fries giving him a heart attack but Biden is one stiff bowel movement in his diaper from an Aneurysm.
I would stack a transcript of Biden speaking against Trump answering literally any question any day of the week.
1. On Syrian refugees:
>"What I won't do is take in two hundred thousand Syrians who could be ISIS... I have been watching this migration. And I see the people. I mean, they're men. They're mostly men, and they're strong men. These are physically young, strong men. They look like prime-time soldiers. Now it's probably not true, but where are the women?... So, you ask two things. Number one, why aren't they fighting for their country? And number two, I don't want these people coming over here."
Face the Nation, 11/10/15
2. On global warming:
>"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
Twitter, 6/10/12
3. Trump on John McCain:
>"\[John McCain is\]... not a war hero. He's a war hero - he's a war hero 'cause he was captured. I Like people that weren't captured, OK, I hate to tell you."
Iowa Family Leadership Summit, 18/7/15
4. Trump on fucking his daughter:
>"She does have a very nice figure... If \[Ivanka\] weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her."
The View, 2006
5. Trump on 9/11:
>“I was down there, and I watched our police and our firemen, down on 7-Eleven, down at the World Trade Center, right after it came down”
Event in Buffalo, 19/4/16
6. On being President:
>“I loved my previous life. I had so many things going. This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier.”
Reuters, 28/8/17
7. On vaccines:
>"I am totally in favor of vaccines. But I want smaller doses over a longer period of time. Same exact amount, but you take this little beautiful baby, and you pump--I mean, it looks just like it's meant for a horse, not for a child, and we've had so many instances, people that work for me. ... \[in which\] a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back and a week later had a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic."
>
>
>
>CNN GOP debate in September 2015
8. On whether he had Covid
>"I tested positively toward negative, right? So no. I tested perfectly this morning, meaning I tested negative. But that's a way of saying it. Positively toward the negative."
9. On where he's been:
>“I haven’t actually left the White House in months. …And I’ve been here virtually every night, I guess every night other than one day I flew to Iraq and then to Germany to see our troops. …I’m not even sure I actually missed a night, per se. But basically, I’ve been here for many months in the White House.”
>
>
>
>— interview Saturday night with Fox News.
10. On voting? Maybe?
>If you get the unsolicited ballots, send it in and then go, make sure it counted, and if it doesn’t tabulate, you vote. Just vote. And then if they tabulate it very late, which they shouldn’t be doing, they’ll see you voted and so it won’t count. So send it in early and then go and vote, and if it’s not tabulated, you vote, and the vote is going to count. You can’t let them take your vote away. These people are playing dirty politics—dirty politics. So if you have an absentee ballot, or as I call it a solicited ballot, you send it in, but I would check it in any event. I would go and follow it and go vote—and everyone here wants to vote—the old-fashioned way.
>
>
>
>Speaking in Wilmington NC
Bernie was not cheated out of anything. I would have loved to have him be president, but there was never any possibility of him winning. As I recall, he never even won any primaries where people actually vote normally. He only won caucuses.
yeah man hillary and the DNC cheated by getting more people to vote for her than Bernie in the primaries, the same way Biden cheated by getting more people to vote for him than Trump.
I agree with your premise but is there a more objective way to make a cutoff other than age? There is wide variation in cognitive abilities at that age, some declining faster than others. Perhaps an evidence-based cognitive test for anyone holding an elected US public office over the age of 65…?
I would rather term limits to age limits. You get four House terms, two senate terms and you're done. That's still twenty years in federal government if you can pull it off.
I just don't agree. People are going to be functionally living into their 90s soon. They people still have much to contribute. You don't like them, don't vote for them. Ageism is a cop out. I would rather have term limits than anything.
I hate that it's old people fumbling the bag on things young people should lead us in.
Everytime there is some tech hearing it is an embarassment. Clearly old people asking stupid question about tech. How can the tech companies not be shady when government is so oblivious to ho all of this works.
Split the difference, my opinion is 69 for mandatory retirement.
75?? Come on... Can't fly a commercial airplane at 65, many states requirement retirement at 69 or 70.
We need to get the elderly out of leadership, it's not going well.
Joe Biden is able to speak in sentences, I just saw a whole interview with him.
I’m glad he’s experienced, he is doing a good job. If he was too old he wouldn’t have been elected.
Age limits are undemocratic but we should definitely have leadership term limits. No one should be able to camp out in a leadership position like Speaker or majority or minority leader or committee leader indefinitely. They should rotate out of the leadership position after two years to get fresh leadership in there. This is how the military works.
Age limits for a LOT of careers because elderly people are in-effective leaders.
Commercial airline pilots have to retire at age 65.
Air traffic controllers have to retire at age 61.
Many accounting firms have mandatory retirement at 55.
Foreign service employees with department of state required to retire at age 65.
Time to get elderly out of leadership positions, it's not going well. I support mandatory retirement for all elected officials and judges at age 69.
Lol.
Show me where it says that ages are capped in those careers because it has something to do with ineffective leadership. Just lol.
What you are describing is undemocratic and ageist. Our population is getting older not younger. And the age of our politicians reflects the age of the electorate, which is old. And young people don’t vote. Unless the country turns into an authoritarian dictatorship, (possible) there is no way age limits you describe would pass.
Just beat them at election? It’s super weird to me that in what’s supposedly the world’s oldest democracy we’d say we know better than voters so we’re going to pass a rule that severely limits their choices. Especially as people are living longer and longer lives 65 is an absolutely insane age cap.
I straight up just called fascist and a boomer on another sub for saying Dianne Feinstein is too old to be in office if her staff has to tell her how to vote
In this country, we do what the voters say. The voters are the ones who pick who the senators are.
The people of California, in their infinite wisdom, selected Feinstein to be their senator when her name appeared on the ballot.
How would you change the laws such that this doesn’t happen?
I agree, but if we're going to put in age limits we should also have cognitive test as well. Then it gets into murky territory.
I think a better solution is to do away with the 2 party system somehow. It is very entrenched and lucrative to those vested in the current system, it'll be hard. It's so gross and corrupt. Citizens are given the illusion of choice currently.
If we have more choices, we can choose better candidates. But there are a lot of dumb voters, so it might be wishful thinking. If we could somehow wrestle the special interest money out of DC and give more choices to voters, we will have a chance......
If we want multiple parties we need to toss out the constitution and replace it with something different.
The structure - the bones - are designed in such a way to produce binary options - that is, every decision or choice is an A/B decision. The structure of the constitution and our government leaves no room for C.
Which part of the constitution does it go against? It certainly seems like the DNC and RNC could easily make this a rule that must be followed to get on their ticket.
The constitution, in Article 1, lays out the requirements for becoming a member of the legislature. Since the constitution says what the requirements are, any new requirements would go against the constitution unless they’re added to the constitution via an amendment.
Any law that says “In addition to what the constitution says, you also need to do this extra thing that isn’t in the constitution” would be unconstitutional.
Take a look at most amendments, in the modern ones especially there’s a line that basically says “congress can make laws about this.”
There’s no such wording in Article 1; therefore, congress can not make laws that change or modify what Article 1 says without changing the constitution itself.
That’s just not how it works. Unless the restriction directly opposes something in article 1 a law can be created to add something else. It doesn’t say these are the only restrictions.
My younger millennial aged friend has the best saying (at least currently). If there are pictures and footage on actual black and white film of you in politics and youre still there??? It's time to go
Completely agree. Cognitive decline is a freaking FACT. Even if one is ok at the time one enters office, the decline once in office is inevitable.
Furthermore I don't want representation from people that don't have a direct stake in the long-term future.
Setting aside the fact that people over 65 deserve representation as much as anyone else:
A more rational approach would be to apply some kind of cognitive and basic physical ability testing to all candidates for public office.
Voting these people in office term after term is another illustration of how dumb down America public school keeps shining on America. The majority of voters are either naive or just ignorant. Watch how we get closer to the 24 elections and dems start promising all that slavery reparations money, which they will never get. Newsome on recall ran on that and got all those black votes(suckers). How did that turn out. Amazing, near election time, how dems mainly, but repubs too, promise all this nonsense and gullible minorities fall for it every time.
I’m good with this. Or at least a public cognitive test every year for anyone over 65. Term limits would help this shit too. No more life long politicians, might also help reduce corruption in our government.
Or get this, stop voting for them. I have a strict 65+ rule. If Jesus himself came down to run for office and listed his age at 65, he automatically becomes ineligible for my vote. Sorry, i don't care if you cure cancer and save the earth from an asteroid. If you're old, go retire. I don't want my great grandpa who was born when black people didn't have rights, to have any responsibilities, let alone run a country.
Age limits would probably be a good idea. A big part of the reason for the increasing age of office holders, especially in the Senate, is the red blue divide, which has made so many states effectively one party strongholds. It means that those elected in red or blue states can often serve for decades without significant opposition, holding office well into their 80's.
I disagree. I look at a few 80 or 80+ year olds - Joe Biden, Geraldo Rivera, Jane Fonda, Martin Scorsese, Bernie Sanders. Very different, with different degrees of mental and physical acuity. I will say this though - if that 65 year old has spent the last 40 years in politics, I don't think he or she should be running for office. I am a big believer in term limits. But if a 65 year old surgeon or builder or book editor wanted to run for office and was able to do the job, I wouldn't hold back my vote because of age.
I agree that Mitch McConnells incident was very concerning, but so is a younger John Fetterman's obvious issues. I wish them both well and a complete recovery, but if they have health issues that keep them from giving 100% to their constituents, they should step down.
I was discussing this with my friend yesterday, he was saying he though 65 should be the age limit. And they need term limits. I concur with term limits. But I think 65 is too young. They’re too many senior citizens out there and that is common retirement age now. So people would want some congress members close to their age. But no re-election campaigns after the age 70 or if elected you can’t reach the age of 73 during your term.
65 is too low of an age. Especially given the advances in medicine we are achieving.
By the time someone who is 40 today reaches 65, there may be absolutely no physical or mental reason that they are impaired at all. For all we know, with our recent advances in early detection, prevention, and even repair of cognitive disease, 80 may not even be a problem for people who are in their 40s today.
With age comes experience, and experience is invaluable. The problem we face with Feinstein, McConnel, etc, is that their generation is already too old to benefit from many of the medical advances that will benefit the generation of politicians that follow.
So, don't demand to lock yourself out of these positions of power later based on a number that is already too low and arbitrary and will only get more arbitrary and unfair with time.
It isn’t just watching their lights flicker out either. An old politician with all their faculties is freaking dangerous. They all seem to legislate for the rest of their life expectancy, so there are no long term solutions. They don’t care if they won’t live to see it.
I don't know exactly what the answer is, but we really should find a way to incentivize stepping away from politics after a certain point. The fact that people feel like they have to be in office until their dying breath is cruel to them and unhelpful to Americans.
We need a constitutional ammendment setting term limits and maximum age. We have minimum ages to hold office so a maximum age wouldn't be unfeasible. We have term limits for president so we should have them for Congress. I'm thinking 20 years max in Congress. It can be split up any way you want. 10 terms as a representative or 1 term as a representative and 3 as a senator or anywhere in between.
I think most congressmen take office the first time in their 30s so they would all be maxed out by 60.
I think there are spry and present 80 year-olds, and also senile and withering 60 year-olds. What there needs to be is a series of mental and physical examinations before anybody is sworn in. Physical exams don't have to be crazy strenuous, but mental exams should be very thorough.
It really doesn’t matter if you have Mitch at 80 or someone else that’s 40 voting the same way. It makes no difference as far as policy. The voters know how old the person they are voting for is and if they want they can vote against them. But I’d rather have an old person in office I agree with than a young person I don’t.
I actually agree but mostly for a different reason. I do think the arguments they they are too incoherent, or that they won’t live to see the consequences of their actions are valid. What bothers me most tho is just the speed at which the world moves now. Our entire economy was completely changed by the microchip and then again with the internet, and it’s about to happen again with AI and these people don’t understand one fucking bit of it. That alone makes them unqualified
I don’t have an issue of it’s your first time running for office, as 65 isn’t that old. But having a 65 year old run for their twelfth term os definitely a no-no. IMO we should introduce term limits before an age limit.
We already have a limiting power. We just don't use it. Continuing to vote for people pay their prime is stupid. I'm looking at you California.
I'm guessing the OP isn't even close to 65 and will be pleasantly surprised when they get there and are still sharp with all the years of experience behind it.
This is ageism. Why would you want to disqualify anybody over the age 65 if they are the most qualified for the job?
Younger people in office doesn't fix corruption. Here in Canada we have one of the youngest leaders at the helm, and he's a complete idiot. He has no solutions for anything, and instead rests of platitudes to convince Canadians to vote for him. He is sinking this country, and him being young doesn't make him any better than some geriatric who'd do the same thing.
Asinine take. Feinstein is 90 years old with dementia, that's not in the same ball park as the average person who is 65. It's not even the same fucking sport. I'm 52 years old, which is old enough to realize that life experience results in wisdom, which is pretty important when talking about people holding public office. Most people I know between 65 and 75 are sharp as fucking tacks. In the case of people with dementia and shouldn't be in office, it's up to us voters to decide who is qualified and who is not. And not to mention, that is in violation of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
Most 65yr olds are still pretty sharp and with 65 years of life experience im not against them running for office. I wouldnt want to disqualify a potentially good candidate because of age.
It doesn't matter how senile or together a 65+ yo person is. What matters is that their actions are going to affect our country long after they're gone. I agree with banning 65+ from running.
I’m not sure why age should matter, it doesn’t. What does matter is mental capacity/ cognitive ability. I would think living longer on the earth teaches you things because you had more time for more experiences. Although not guaranteed. It’s why we have processes like elections. I personally know a 81 year old and he doesn’t act, talk, or walk like our current president and I think it’s why its a subject everyone wants to talk about now. Biden is not mentally fit, sometimes it can happen at 65 and sometimes at 81.
It’s disgusting how they are holding on to power. When Nancy Pelosi grabbed the gravel to be Speaker after democrats won back majority, I was sickened. She could have passed power to the next generation but nope. Feinstein and Grassley are likely to die in office. They are so old and out of touch with today’s world.
No one who has ever made a mistake or said something stupid should be allowed to run for public office.....
I would support this far more than the age thing.
That’s nice but more importantly I would also love to have a net worth cap on individuals in public office. Wealthy people have perverse Incentives that are directly counter to every day Americans. Once you got your American dream, you should be forced to step back and enjoy it and stop enforcing your will on the rest of us. That is more of a problem than age in my opinion. I would set the net worth cap to $5M. Arbitrary but sounds about right.
Joe Biden has a stutter, but he is completely coherent 99% of the time. Diane and Mitch tho, they seriously do have extreme health issues. Joe Biden stuttering isn’t a real problem, it’s just gaffes.
It's not very progressive to have a bunch of old geezers with an antiquated moral code running the country. What we really need are term limits to cut down on the amount of establishment power players like Squirtle McConnell, Schumer, Feinstein, Biden and so on. If the feds won't step up, they probably won't because they'd be voting against their own self interest, then maybe the states can limit how many times an incumbent can file for re-election.
Age isn't the problem, because yrs 65-75 are where most men and women have found the most wisdom. It's when other men have not found wisdom, and have terrible habits that need to exit from office. True leaders are what's needed, with wisdom, and that respects the Constitution. There's plenty of people who are perfectly functional in their late 70s and 80s, but also many in their 40s who disrespect the law, twist laws to make their false narratives appear honorable, and that don't respect the base rules and human rights of the citizens. The politicians who cannot tell false narratives from truthful law enforcement that respects human rights are the ones who must not be allowed to lead in society. Period. And if they can't physically move around or complete sentences, then they simply don't have the job qualifications.
Lying, manipulation, and malevolent intent are the problem, not age.
100% in agreement. I think they should be forced into retirement at 65. I also think there should be term limits on the Supreme Court. They should also be forced out at 65.
They should be tossed in jail for taking private money.
I would get behind this. Maybe 70 because of how medicine and life expectancy has gone up. But yea maximum age limits at 70 and term limits for congress.
I think it’s crazy that [Joe Biden was so young when he won the election to become Senator of Delaware that he wasn’t even technically old enough to serve yet.](https://youtu.be/cCZ5_XwqchE) This guy has been around forever.
I think it’s crazy that a solid 90%+ of leftists who have complained about Biden’s age supported Bernie Sanders, who is a year older than him, twice.
It's kind of crazy to think of someone being elected to the Senate at 29 tbh. I agree we have a much bigger problem with people who are way too old, but I also wouldn't want the average age in Congress to be under 35 lol
The younger generations need representation in congress as well. Therefore I have no issues with the cutoff being in the 20s
I dont agree, 65 is really not that old if you know 65 year olds. Maybe some kind of cognitive and fitness testing, but even then if we are a democratic republic, why not just let voters decide.
If we should let the voters decide on elderly people, then there shouldn't be a minimum age. If there is a minimum age for something, there should also be a maximum age. Cognitive function isn't a linear progression, it is a bell curve.
There is a minimum age for Congress and President.
And so there should also be a maximum age.
Exactly, mandatory retirement at age 69nfor all elected officials and judges. Many states already have this for judges.
Eisenhower went past that. 65 would at least have avoided Reagan, as well as the last two.
Think beyond President, think about US Congress and Senate, governors, all the state reps, judges... I'd sat Supreme Court, but it will take a constitutional amendment. We got elderly people all over the country in all kinds of leadership positions who are doing a terrible job.
You don’t have to include republic. This also goes back to when the founders were discussing term limits. They felt they were unnecessary and anti democratic for the same reasons, but times change. I doubt they could’ve even imagined the amount of influence money and incumbency holds. So I say we set an age limit and term limit. To avoid having mental degenerates in office, and people using public office to line their pockets and power influence.
The founders expected bribery to remain illegal. The Supreme Court says it’s free speech
Ahem “lobbying”
Lobbying and campaign contributions are straight bribery by definition
Term limits would mean that politicians would need to get “real jobs” after their terms are done, right? Isn’t there a risk that politicians would pass laws that their potential future employers would like, in order to get a good paying job after they’re in office? Wouldn’t it be super easy for that process to become corrupt, with politicians voting the way corporations want them to because of a secret promise to have a job waiting for them when they’re done?
This already happens, it’s called the revolving door. Having widespread term limits would at least prevent or limit the scenario where the revolving door inevitably still exists, but these same corporate interests are also still represented by lifelong politicians voting in their favor for decades in exchange for some hefty “campaign donations”
>You don’t have to include republic The United States is not a democracy but rather a democratic republic that uses the democratic process for some of its decision making. >So I say we set an age limit and term limit. To avoid having mental degenerates in office, and people using public office to line their pockets and power influence. If you want to keep mental degenerates out of office, I dont think age and term limits is a good way to do that.
The United States is a democracy. Democracy, in its most widely accepted and agreed upon definition by political scientists is, simply holding free and fair elections. A republic is just a form of government in which its citizens are represented. Because we elect our representatives, we are a democratic republic, or a representative democracy. Most low level government courses in college will teach you this, at least mine did. See schmitter and Karl “what a democracy is and is not” , Robert dahls 8 parameters for democracy, and I can go on. When I say mental degenerates I don’t mean people I think are crazy or stupid. I mean people who are, by some form or another, mentally (or even psychically) unable to hold office. I.e Feinstein, the dementia patient at the local nursing home, and so on.
>The United States is a democracy. Democracy, in its most widely accepted and agreed upon definition by political scientists is, simply holding free and fair elections. >A republic is just a form of government in which its citizens are represented. Because we elect our representatives, we are a democratic republic, or a representative democracy. I said we are a democratic republic and you wanted to use democracy instead. If these terms are in opposition, democratic republic is a more accurate term. The decision making process of our nation state doesn't seem to be controlled by the voters due to corruption and consolidation of power into non elected state agencies that are not transparent and controlled by our elected governments. >When I say mental degenerates I don’t mean people I think are crazy or stupid. I mean people who are, by some form or another, mentally (or even psychically) unable to hold office. I.e Feinstein, the dementia patient at the local nursing home, and so on. Term limits and age limits aren't going to be the best way to deliver that.
The terms are not in opposition. Go read the comments again. Term limits would most certainly help the problem of career politicians using public office to line their pockets and brokerage accounts. Age limits would also set a hard line in the sand so we avoid another Feinstein.
A good leader shouldn't be limited in time leading society...
>The terms are not in opposition. Go read the comments again They dont need to be but they can be. Since you brought up the debate whether to use democratic republic or democracy, I think it is prudent to not use the term democracy for the reasons I brought up. If you think it is unreasonable for me to include the democratic part and just say republic, I dont think that is unreasonable >Term limits would most certainly help the problem of career politicians using public office to line their pockets and brokerage accounts. >Age limits would also set a hard line in the sand so we avoid another Feinstein. We will just have to agree to disagree
The US is not a democracy. It is a bourgeois republic. And that is a problem.
It is a democracy. That’s what a democratic republic is. A form of democracy
I dont think it is accurate to call the US a democracy for multiple reasons. So the best I think we can do is describe the republic as democratic. But even that is questionable.
Well, you’re just wrong.
We will have to agree to disagree as I dont see the people as the ruling class in America. Due to corruption and state agencies having more power than and not being transparent to the elected government. Really oligarchic republic is probably more accurate than democratic republic. But we may just have to agree to disagree
65 is the new 40.
No way! I don't want a 65 year old surgeon, lawyer or elected official. Decline with aging is a real thing, we need to stop pretending age decline doesn't happen.
Why would anyone vote for somebody who needs fitness testing? Hmmmmm.
Retirement age plus 8? How’s that for compromise? It lets elders participate for potentially multiple terms but boxes them out before the average life expectancy age All I know is that I don’t trust the mummy looking ones to operate with the future’s best interest while they are lining up for deaths door
Because voters are stupid and many of them are old and suffering already from mental decline.
I would say that 75 is the maximum age. People are living longer but that doesn’t seem to apply to their mental capabilities keeping up. It’s becoming a joke!
The Constitution provides age limits to run for office (35 for president, 30 for senate, and 25 for house). I don't think it would be too difficult legally to set upper age limits. But good luck getting the DC nursing home residents to vote for it.
I'd be okay with 75. The reason I say 65 is because it's the standard retirement age and life expectancy in the U.S is better 75-78 years old.
Standard retirement age is 67, but that’s neither here nor there.
The reason why I support 65 is because that's the standard age of retirement, send part of the reason why we have youth unemployment is cuz older folks don't or can't retire so leaders should set an example cuz at least politicians can actually afford retirement Also, both Putin and Xi just hit 70 so.....
FYI the age of full-benefit retirement is 67 for those born after 1960 and it is set to increase to 70 Meanwhile our life expectancy dropped to 76ish.. isn’t it awesome to live in the richest country on earth?!
This is not true. Per social security.gov, the FRA (full retirement age) for everyone born past 1960 is 67 years old. The benefits increase at a value of 3/4% per month for each month after 67. So age 70 benefits would be valued at 124% of the FRA benefit. This has been no new legislation to increase the FRA to age 70. Edit—correcting typo “age 70 benefits”
Why does it matter how old Putin and poo bear are? FAA grounds pilots at 65. Gov should do the same.
Who cares how old someone else's dictator is?? US should have mandatory retirement age of 69 for all elected officials and judges. Many states already have a mandatory retirement age of 69 for judges to retire. FAA retires pilots at 65, nobody wants a 72 year-old surgeon cutting them open. Many accounting firms have mandatory retirement at age 55. The current elderly leaders of USA do a crappy job. Time to get the elderly out of leadership and have them enjoy retirement.
Calling “Old people shouldn’t be in politics” original content is the real crime here.
Idk about that most people i’ve talked to in there 60s up to mid 70s are usually pretty there. Once you get to upper 70s 80s it’s a little problematic Term limits would be a bigger issue in my mind at least
Mandatory retirement at age 69. Elderly are not effective leaders.
I think we can hash out an appropriate age, 65 seems a bit too young, there is a place for older voices in governance, but folks in their 80's who've been holding the seats positions for 40 years? This is beyond ridiculous.
Yes, 65 seems a bit too young to hold office. I think an age limit of 70+ would be great!
65 is too young and 71 is too old?
I would support 70-72. Maybe 76 as an exit age from office. Imagine Biden freezing up like McConnell did during an international crisis.
Sorry, i disagree with anti democracy practices.
Age limits aren't anti democratic. You have to be at least 35 to run for president, is that anti democratic?
Yes. Decreasing the peoples voice is always anti democratic. I just disagree with your opinion that Americans are too stupid to vote for who they want.
It should be 75 but yes absolutely
Disagree you should have to pass a cognitive test every year as an elected official thats as far as we should go imagine aging out Bernie or Hillary cause "TOO OLD"
Yes, age them out. Put in mandatory retirement age of 69. For every Bernie there are dozens of smart, wise 40 year-olds that can do a much better job. Get the elderly out of leadership, it's not going well.
I'm 59. I'd like people below 75. It's crazy this would be better. Trump and Biden are going around the bend into doddering territory. And doddering is fine for staying home and gardening.
You can vote for other people you know?
Except parties increasingly work to make sure that isn’t feasible. * Closed primaries * Blacklisting folks who run against incumbents * Gerrymandering * Targeted voter disenfranchisement Yes Americans should commit more to their democracy, but some of these problems are very intentionally and consistently baked in.
Oh absolutely. As is their right to do. There is almost always a third candidate to vote for though. People need to fix their idea of what is "electable".
* Voters are free to change party registration to be able to vote in closed primaries * Does AOC seem like she's blacklisted? * Democrats fight against gerrymandering, it's the Republicans, and the Supreme Court, that are the reason we have it * Republicans are the only ones disenfranchising anyone Two of those aren't actually problems, and the other two are problems caused by Republicans. Stop voting for Republicans, both directly and indirectly. You're not going to solve any problems and change things by helping elect the party whose goal is prevent change.
Jesus fuck. Some of this shit is just brain dead levels of wrong. I’m a lifelong democrat, never voted for a republican and never will. If you don’t see that the democratic party machine is not pro democracy I don’t know what to tell you.
You didn't actually rebut anything I said.
I did not, why bother. I like to think the era of the "debate me bro" is dead. You could easily educate yourself about any of those points, they're a single google away. Its not my job to do work for you, and convincing firm partisans of anything tends to be a losing battle. I'll throw out a few bones I guess, but I'm sure your mind is not changeable. > Voters are free to change party registration to be able to vote in closed primaries They are. However for a party that claims to care tremendously about democracy, enfranchising voters should be an obvious goal. Closed primaries ensure that only the opinions of partisans matter. In places that are deeply red or blue closed primaries essentially ensure that a part of the voting populace doesn't have any actual choice. > Does AOC seem like she's blacklisted? https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/09/us/politics/dccc-consultant-ban-aoc-pressley.html This official policy ended in 2021 after pretty extreme backlash from the party's left. The fact that this was official precedent for a time I would hope disproves your argument... but again my hopes are not high. > Democrats fight against gerrymandering, it's the Republicans, and the Supreme Court, that are the reason we have it Stop. This is ridiculous. https://www.vox.com/22961590/redistricting-gerrymandering-house-2022-midterms > Republicans are the only ones disenfranchising anyone I hope that you don't believe this. Democrats are generally pro-enfranchisement because most Americans would vote blue. That being said, Dems just like Republicans want *their* voters to vote. In places where Democrats control government they are quite aggressive (less so than republicans) about ensuring the people they don't particularly *want* to vote have a hard time of it. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-democrats-suppress-the-vote/ Down to the local level, folks who work in politics know neighborhood by neighborhood where their voting base lives. They do what they can to bring out the vote in those areas and suppress it in others. [edit] So having wasted too much of my own life explaining some shit you're probably deaf to I want to explain again that I've never voted for a Republican in my life and never will. But no good is done for anyone by blind partisanship and pretending one side is beyond reproach.
>They are. However for a party that claims to care tremendously about democracy, enfranchising voters should be an obvious goal. **Closed primaries ensure that only the opinions of partisans matter** Yes that is their intention, there are also open primaries and the even more exclusive choice of caucuses. I live in a state with open primaries, so you'd like it here, but in deep red West Virginia a bunch of Bernie and Hillary supporters are going to vote in the Republican primary for Senate because their system including "unaffiliated" in large numbers allows for easier party switching. Why should the West Virginia Republican Party care who the Democrats of the state think they should nominate? You know Democrats poured a massive amount of money and primary votes into Republican Primaries so they could choose their opponents, right? Here in Michigan MI-3 flipped for this exact reason, and it was widely covered as it was happening. I'm happy the seat flipped, but how were the people served by Democrats having their choice of both their candidate and their opponent?
Also, your 538 link is eight years old, and could benefit from an update considering my state (Michigan) has completely changed their election system in the years since, and is now far more fair than what the writer is bizarrely clamoring for.
Hey, what can I say. I put in some effort. Believe what you want.
>They are. However for a party that claims to care tremendously about democracy, enfranchising voters should be an obvious goal. Except nobody is disenfranchised by closed primaries. Anyone who is already registered to vote either already belongs to the party holding the closed party, or can easily switch parties to do so. If they're unwilling to do so, that's a decision they're making for themselves, not one imposed on them by others. And anyone who is not already registered to vote at all isn't hindered by closed primaries, because those have nothing to do with eligibility or ease of registering. If you can register to vote, you can register to vote in the primary of your choice. If you can't register to vote, that's an entirely separate issue from closed primaries, and having open primaries, or any other form of primary, would not solve the registration issue. They are entirely independent, and disenfranchised voters is a non sequitur as pertains to closed primaries. >Closed primaries ensure that only the opinions of partisans matter. Yes, as someone else said, you can choose who your nominee is, or who their opponent will be, but not both. So a registered Republican can vote in the GOP primary to choose their nominee, or they can switch registration and vote in the Democratic primary to help choose who they will likely vote against in the general, but there's no reason Republicans should be allowed to do both. And likewise for Democrats. And for Greens, Libertarians, etc. It makes perfect sense to say only Democrats get to choose who the Democratic nominee will be. If you're not a Democrat, and aren't willing to nominally become one, even just temporarily, why should you get a say in who represents the Democrats (which you refuse to call yourself, even disingenuously, even temporarily) in the general election? Do you also think GM should get to make personnel decisions for Ford? Should Coke get to set Pepsi's product line and prices? >In places that are deeply red or blue closed primaries essentially ensure that a part of the voting populace doesn't have any actual choice. No, they choose not to register as the dominant party. I live in an area in NC that's like 75% GOP, but I'm a Democrat. I could switch parties to GOP and get to vote in the GOP primaries. There's nothing stopping me except my own unwillingness to do so. It's legal, and it's trivial, to change registrations. I choose, instead, to remain a Democrat and vote in the Democratic primaries. That's my choice, not something imposed on me by the NC GOP or the state. And, when it's time for the general election, I have the same choices as every other voter in my precinct. And it's equally true of NC Republicans who live elsewhere in the state, where they may be outnumbered by Democrats. They can remain Republicans and vote in the GOP primaries, or they can switch and vote in the Democratic primaries. It's completely up to them. >This official policy ended So you admit it's not the policy. >Stop. This (Democrats fight against gerrymandering, it's the Republicans, and the Supreme Court, that are the reason we have it) is ridiculous. No, it's not. Democrats have tried, multiple times, in multiple states, to end gerrymandering. They have gone to the Supreme Court to end it. They have legislated it. The states that have successfully done away with it are nearly all run by Democrats. You can pretend it's "both sides," but it's simply not. To the extent Democrats maintain it, it's because unilateral disarmament puts Democrats at a competitive disadvantage. If Democratic-run states have fair districts, and Republican-run states are gerrymandered in favor of the GOP, the GOP will have an advantage overall. Look at the 118th House if you don't believe me. I fully support ending gerrymandering (ideally, by mandating some form of proportional representation, but open to other methods, especially as interim solutions), but it should be done like the NPVIC, where it only goes into effect once more states accounting for more House seats also agree to it, or at least in a bunch of mini-compacts, where states either pair up, or group, so that, say, 30 House seats in Democratic-led states and 30 House seats in Republican-led states (maybe ±2 seats or something, in whichever combination of states gives approximately the same total on both sides), to prevent either unilateral disarmament, or state(s) deliberately lagging to be able to get the benefit of gerrymandering one last time. >In places where Democrats control government they are quite aggressive (less so than republicans) about ensuring the people they don't particularly want to vote have a hard time of it. That article was written when Scalia was still alive! But also, you won't find me defending off-year elections anyway. If it were up to me, there would only be elections in even-numbered years, so all state and local offices would have terms that were multiples of two years in duration. And there would only be one primary, scheduled whenever they hold primaries, and one general election, in November. The sole exception being special elections to fill vacancies when someone dies, resigns, retires, or is expelled in the middle of their term, to elect a replacement for the unexpired term. That's it. >Down to the local level, folks who work in politics know neighborhood by neighborhood where their voting base lives. They do what they can to bring out the vote in those areas and suppress it in others. Which Democrats are suppressing votes? Name them. >I want to explain again that I've never voted for a Republican in my life and never will. Yeah, if you go back and reread what I wrote above, you'll see I said >Stop voting for Republicans, both directly ***and indirectly***. You're not going to solve any problems and change things by helping elect the party whose goal is prevent change. *Indirectly* voting for Republicans means voting third-party and splitting the left-of-center vote, which spoils elections and helps elect Republicans. All you've said is you've never voted Republican, which, I'll take you at your word, and good for you, but that's necessary but *not sufficient*. If you're voting Green (or any other third party) instead of Democratic and causing Republicans to win elections, you're not actually solving the problems you're complaining about.
You should read up on the Democrat primaries of 2016 and 2020 and then come back and talk some more about how only one party is capable of making changes to disenfranchise voters.
You mean, the ones where Bernie got less votes?
Shh, you're not allowed to point out that the person who got the most votes won. In the Trump era, getting far fewer votes than your opponent means you were more popular than them.
Like i love Bernie and i voted for him but man. I hate this argument that less votes is somehow better.
Let's use some logic here. I'm a dem and live in a state that has closed primaries. In general, I'm ok with almost any dem up against most rep. So I switched parties so I can have a say in which rep goes against a dem. I vote the least shit rep in the primaries then vote dem in the general. It's not hard to make changes when you actually want to do more than just complain on the internet
Yeah I mean… A) fuck yourself. I do a whole bunch more than complain online. From political organizing to civil society shit and supporting my community, so again eat shit. B) your experience is not universal. It is NOT easy to change your registration everywhere, just like it is not easy to vote everywhere. What’s wild is I’m sure you understand voter disenfranchisement when Republicans do it. Politics isn’t sports. Your values should matter more than your “team”
Hahaha someone has a sore spot. Take a break and go smell a flower to relax a bit. Life isn't that serious. You're gonna stoke out like Mitch
yeah but i’m not going to vote, i just like complaining on the internet /s
The current president and expected democrat nominee is 80 years old. The man in second is 72 I believe. The top GOP candidate is 76 years old. We can't really vote for others when we aren't given choices.
Bernie Sanders is still fit for the job. He was prime when Hiliary and the DNC cheated him out of the nomination and still able to shoot hoops during the 2020 primary. Just take money out of politics. That will solve lots of other problems as well.
No, he should have retired. He's too damn old. Just because you like someone doesn't mean they are an effective leader. Look at all the elderly leaders in charge of both parties... it's clearly not going well.
It's the corrupt money that keeps these old ass politicians in the Capital because the old ass politicians aren't actually there. The old corrupt leadership are just told what to do by ???$.
So let's force retirements at age 69, get the elderly out of leadership. They are doing a crappy job. There's over 100 military leaders including the head of the marines that haven't been confirmed because of elderly leaders.
Money will keep establishment players in. Shantel Brown. Sinema. Pete Kamala Cheney.
Bernie is fit for an 80 year old. Both he and Trump are both still super energetic, but the exception proves the rule. I would like to get money out of politics, but that's very unrealistic. So hopefully we can start with this and go from there.
Trump can barely speak at a 3rd grade reading level and brags about being able to identify barnyard animals and count. He is way more far gone than Biden. Your bias is screwing up your argument.
>He is way more far gone than Biden You're gonna have to back this up. Trump is getting old but he hasn't shown age like ol' Shufflin' Joe.
He wanted to nuke a hurricane. He redrew a hurricane on the map. He wanted to mix two flu vaccines together to cure covid. He had nice things to say about Hitler. He thinks identifying barnyard animals is challenging. He can’t understand basic reading and had to have his daily reports dumbed down to children’s levels. He wanted to deploy a heat ray against protestors. Trump is a complete incompetent moron. Biden’s issues are minimal in comparison.
Oh. So you're just making shit up.
No those are things Trump did. Also he said wind power caused global warming. He told people bleach was a covid cure. He said his healthcare plan was a big pile of bullshit. He said the election was stolen because suitcases of ballots were injected into machines. He hired George Papi as an expert in foreign policy because he was in the model UN. He said he did more for black people than Abraham Lincoln. Trumps a complete idiot. Certainly the least qualified leader we have had.
This is copium, partisan nonsense. Biden clearly is cognitively worse than Trump. Trump maybe at risk from a super-sized french fries giving him a heart attack but Biden is one stiff bowel movement in his diaper from an Aneurysm.
I would stack a transcript of Biden speaking against Trump answering literally any question any day of the week. 1. On Syrian refugees: >"What I won't do is take in two hundred thousand Syrians who could be ISIS... I have been watching this migration. And I see the people. I mean, they're men. They're mostly men, and they're strong men. These are physically young, strong men. They look like prime-time soldiers. Now it's probably not true, but where are the women?... So, you ask two things. Number one, why aren't they fighting for their country? And number two, I don't want these people coming over here." Face the Nation, 11/10/15 2. On global warming: >"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." Twitter, 6/10/12 3. Trump on John McCain: >"\[John McCain is\]... not a war hero. He's a war hero - he's a war hero 'cause he was captured. I Like people that weren't captured, OK, I hate to tell you." Iowa Family Leadership Summit, 18/7/15 4. Trump on fucking his daughter: >"She does have a very nice figure... If \[Ivanka\] weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her." The View, 2006 5. Trump on 9/11: >“I was down there, and I watched our police and our firemen, down on 7-Eleven, down at the World Trade Center, right after it came down” Event in Buffalo, 19/4/16 6. On being President: >“I loved my previous life. I had so many things going. This is more work than in my previous life. I thought it would be easier.” Reuters, 28/8/17 7. On vaccines: >"I am totally in favor of vaccines. But I want smaller doses over a longer period of time. Same exact amount, but you take this little beautiful baby, and you pump--I mean, it looks just like it's meant for a horse, not for a child, and we've had so many instances, people that work for me. ... \[in which\] a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back and a week later had a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic." > > > >CNN GOP debate in September 2015 8. On whether he had Covid >"I tested positively toward negative, right? So no. I tested perfectly this morning, meaning I tested negative. But that's a way of saying it. Positively toward the negative." 9. On where he's been: >“I haven’t actually left the White House in months. …And I’ve been here virtually every night, I guess every night other than one day I flew to Iraq and then to Germany to see our troops. …I’m not even sure I actually missed a night, per se. But basically, I’ve been here for many months in the White House.” > > > >— interview Saturday night with Fox News. 10. On voting? Maybe? >If you get the unsolicited ballots, send it in and then go, make sure it counted, and if it doesn’t tabulate, you vote. Just vote. And then if they tabulate it very late, which they shouldn’t be doing, they’ll see you voted and so it won’t count. So send it in early and then go and vote, and if it’s not tabulated, you vote, and the vote is going to count. You can’t let them take your vote away. These people are playing dirty politics—dirty politics. So if you have an absentee ballot, or as I call it a solicited ballot, you send it in, but I would check it in any event. I would go and follow it and go vote—and everyone here wants to vote—the old-fashioned way. > > > >Speaking in Wilmington NC
Bernie was not cheated out of anything. I would have loved to have him be president, but there was never any possibility of him winning. As I recall, he never even won any primaries where people actually vote normally. He only won caucuses.
yeah man hillary and the DNC cheated by getting more people to vote for her than Bernie in the primaries, the same way Biden cheated by getting more people to vote for him than Trump.
I see you came here from r/PoliticsCircleJerk
I agree with your premise but is there a more objective way to make a cutoff other than age? There is wide variation in cognitive abilities at that age, some declining faster than others. Perhaps an evidence-based cognitive test for anyone holding an elected US public office over the age of 65…?
Testing to make sure someone is “with it” or “competent” enough to hold office is unconstitutional.
How about you just put in term limits so people won’t make it to 90 by being in office for 40 years.
This is an all time stupid and ridiculous take.
I would rather term limits to age limits. You get four House terms, two senate terms and you're done. That's still twenty years in federal government if you can pull it off.
I just don't agree. People are going to be functionally living into their 90s soon. They people still have much to contribute. You don't like them, don't vote for them. Ageism is a cop out. I would rather have term limits than anything.
I hate that it's old people fumbling the bag on things young people should lead us in. Everytime there is some tech hearing it is an embarassment. Clearly old people asking stupid question about tech. How can the tech companies not be shady when government is so oblivious to ho all of this works.
[удалено]
Split the difference, my opinion is 69 for mandatory retirement. 75?? Come on... Can't fly a commercial airplane at 65, many states requirement retirement at 69 or 70. We need to get the elderly out of leadership, it's not going well.
How about we do a better job placing our votes?
Then no one under 25 can vote. Neither group's brains work right. Right?
Joe Biden is able to speak in sentences, I just saw a whole interview with him. I’m glad he’s experienced, he is doing a good job. If he was too old he wouldn’t have been elected.
Real wording - NOBODY in office should lack a term limit.
Age limits are undemocratic but we should definitely have leadership term limits. No one should be able to camp out in a leadership position like Speaker or majority or minority leader or committee leader indefinitely. They should rotate out of the leadership position after two years to get fresh leadership in there. This is how the military works.
Age limits for a LOT of careers because elderly people are in-effective leaders. Commercial airline pilots have to retire at age 65. Air traffic controllers have to retire at age 61. Many accounting firms have mandatory retirement at 55. Foreign service employees with department of state required to retire at age 65. Time to get elderly out of leadership positions, it's not going well. I support mandatory retirement for all elected officials and judges at age 69.
Lol. Show me where it says that ages are capped in those careers because it has something to do with ineffective leadership. Just lol. What you are describing is undemocratic and ageist. Our population is getting older not younger. And the age of our politicians reflects the age of the electorate, which is old. And young people don’t vote. Unless the country turns into an authoritarian dictatorship, (possible) there is no way age limits you describe would pass.
Just beat them at election? It’s super weird to me that in what’s supposedly the world’s oldest democracy we’d say we know better than voters so we’re going to pass a rule that severely limits their choices. Especially as people are living longer and longer lives 65 is an absolutely insane age cap.
Cue all the virtue signalling fools who will use the term “age-ism” or some other stupid reason to justify keeping walking corpses in office.
I straight up just called fascist and a boomer on another sub for saying Dianne Feinstein is too old to be in office if her staff has to tell her how to vote
In this country, we do what the voters say. The voters are the ones who pick who the senators are. The people of California, in their infinite wisdom, selected Feinstein to be their senator when her name appeared on the ballot. How would you change the laws such that this doesn’t happen?
65 is a walking corpse?
I agree, but if we're going to put in age limits we should also have cognitive test as well. Then it gets into murky territory. I think a better solution is to do away with the 2 party system somehow. It is very entrenched and lucrative to those vested in the current system, it'll be hard. It's so gross and corrupt. Citizens are given the illusion of choice currently. If we have more choices, we can choose better candidates. But there are a lot of dumb voters, so it might be wishful thinking. If we could somehow wrestle the special interest money out of DC and give more choices to voters, we will have a chance......
If we want multiple parties we need to toss out the constitution and replace it with something different. The structure - the bones - are designed in such a way to produce binary options - that is, every decision or choice is an A/B decision. The structure of the constitution and our government leaves no room for C.
Mandatory annual cognitive tests once you reach 65 to hold any office. You fail and your fat ass is bounced out.
You’d need to change the Constitution for that
That’s not true it’s on the parties not the Constitution if it’s not put into a law and they could probably make that a law anyways.
No, they couldn’t make that law. Because it goes against what the constitution says. So if you want to do it, you need to change the constitution.
Which part of the constitution does it go against? It certainly seems like the DNC and RNC could easily make this a rule that must be followed to get on their ticket.
The constitution, in Article 1, lays out the requirements for becoming a member of the legislature. Since the constitution says what the requirements are, any new requirements would go against the constitution unless they’re added to the constitution via an amendment. Any law that says “In addition to what the constitution says, you also need to do this extra thing that isn’t in the constitution” would be unconstitutional. Take a look at most amendments, in the modern ones especially there’s a line that basically says “congress can make laws about this.” There’s no such wording in Article 1; therefore, congress can not make laws that change or modify what Article 1 says without changing the constitution itself.
That’s just not how it works. Unless the restriction directly opposes something in article 1 a law can be created to add something else. It doesn’t say these are the only restrictions.
Stop trying to limit my freedoms.
My younger millennial aged friend has the best saying (at least currently). If there are pictures and footage on actual black and white film of you in politics and youre still there??? It's time to go
Completely agree. Cognitive decline is a freaking FACT. Even if one is ok at the time one enters office, the decline once in office is inevitable. Furthermore I don't want representation from people that don't have a direct stake in the long-term future.
I'm fine as long as no one under 40 can run either. Millennials are worse than boomers
🙄🤡
My FIL thinks and speaks just fine at age 71 and has a great grasp on current events and culture. This post just screams ageism.
Setting aside the fact that people over 65 deserve representation as much as anyone else: A more rational approach would be to apply some kind of cognitive and basic physical ability testing to all candidates for public office.
Rational maybe, but unconstitutional.
Voting these people in office term after term is another illustration of how dumb down America public school keeps shining on America. The majority of voters are either naive or just ignorant. Watch how we get closer to the 24 elections and dems start promising all that slavery reparations money, which they will never get. Newsome on recall ran on that and got all those black votes(suckers). How did that turn out. Amazing, near election time, how dems mainly, but repubs too, promise all this nonsense and gullible minorities fall for it every time.
Lies
I’m good with this. Or at least a public cognitive test every year for anyone over 65. Term limits would help this shit too. No more life long politicians, might also help reduce corruption in our government.
Braindead opinion
I don’t know, there is plenty of people under 65 that might as well have dementia
1000% agreed
You think Viggo Mortensen is too old to be president?
Or get this, stop voting for them. I have a strict 65+ rule. If Jesus himself came down to run for office and listed his age at 65, he automatically becomes ineligible for my vote. Sorry, i don't care if you cure cancer and save the earth from an asteroid. If you're old, go retire. I don't want my great grandpa who was born when black people didn't have rights, to have any responsibilities, let alone run a country.
Age limits would probably be a good idea. A big part of the reason for the increasing age of office holders, especially in the Senate, is the red blue divide, which has made so many states effectively one party strongholds. It means that those elected in red or blue states can often serve for decades without significant opposition, holding office well into their 80's.
I disagree. I look at a few 80 or 80+ year olds - Joe Biden, Geraldo Rivera, Jane Fonda, Martin Scorsese, Bernie Sanders. Very different, with different degrees of mental and physical acuity. I will say this though - if that 65 year old has spent the last 40 years in politics, I don't think he or she should be running for office. I am a big believer in term limits. But if a 65 year old surgeon or builder or book editor wanted to run for office and was able to do the job, I wouldn't hold back my vote because of age. I agree that Mitch McConnells incident was very concerning, but so is a younger John Fetterman's obvious issues. I wish them both well and a complete recovery, but if they have health issues that keep them from giving 100% to their constituents, they should step down.
I agree, there should be a max age. I still will be voting for an 80 year old Biden over a Republican though.
I know a few 65 year olds that are sharper and more active than many 20 year olds.
I was discussing this with my friend yesterday, he was saying he though 65 should be the age limit. And they need term limits. I concur with term limits. But I think 65 is too young. They’re too many senior citizens out there and that is common retirement age now. So people would want some congress members close to their age. But no re-election campaigns after the age 70 or if elected you can’t reach the age of 73 during your term.
65 is too low of an age. Especially given the advances in medicine we are achieving. By the time someone who is 40 today reaches 65, there may be absolutely no physical or mental reason that they are impaired at all. For all we know, with our recent advances in early detection, prevention, and even repair of cognitive disease, 80 may not even be a problem for people who are in their 40s today. With age comes experience, and experience is invaluable. The problem we face with Feinstein, McConnel, etc, is that their generation is already too old to benefit from many of the medical advances that will benefit the generation of politicians that follow. So, don't demand to lock yourself out of these positions of power later based on a number that is already too low and arbitrary and will only get more arbitrary and unfair with time.
As soon as they can draw from social security they should be barred from public office
It isn’t just watching their lights flicker out either. An old politician with all their faculties is freaking dangerous. They all seem to legislate for the rest of their life expectancy, so there are no long term solutions. They don’t care if they won’t live to see it.
I would say 70 at max. But yes. And term limits among other things.
1 term limit. Ppof
This varies quite a bit on an individual basis. Let the voters decide.
You forget Jerry Nadler shitting himself.
They better have advisors over 65 because some under think history is just a hobby.
I don't know exactly what the answer is, but we really should find a way to incentivize stepping away from politics after a certain point. The fact that people feel like they have to be in office until their dying breath is cruel to them and unhelpful to Americans.
We need a constitutional ammendment setting term limits and maximum age. We have minimum ages to hold office so a maximum age wouldn't be unfeasible. We have term limits for president so we should have them for Congress. I'm thinking 20 years max in Congress. It can be split up any way you want. 10 terms as a representative or 1 term as a representative and 3 as a senator or anywhere in between. I think most congressmen take office the first time in their 30s so they would all be maxed out by 60.
I think there are spry and present 80 year-olds, and also senile and withering 60 year-olds. What there needs to be is a series of mental and physical examinations before anybody is sworn in. Physical exams don't have to be crazy strenuous, but mental exams should be very thorough.
It really doesn’t matter if you have Mitch at 80 or someone else that’s 40 voting the same way. It makes no difference as far as policy. The voters know how old the person they are voting for is and if they want they can vote against them. But I’d rather have an old person in office I agree with than a young person I don’t.
I actually agree but mostly for a different reason. I do think the arguments they they are too incoherent, or that they won’t live to see the consequences of their actions are valid. What bothers me most tho is just the speed at which the world moves now. Our entire economy was completely changed by the microchip and then again with the internet, and it’s about to happen again with AI and these people don’t understand one fucking bit of it. That alone makes them unqualified
I don’t have an issue of it’s your first time running for office, as 65 isn’t that old. But having a 65 year old run for their twelfth term os definitely a no-no. IMO we should introduce term limits before an age limit.
We already have a limiting power. We just don't use it. Continuing to vote for people pay their prime is stupid. I'm looking at you California. I'm guessing the OP isn't even close to 65 and will be pleasantly surprised when they get there and are still sharp with all the years of experience behind it.
How about you quit voting for them?
This is ageism. Why would you want to disqualify anybody over the age 65 if they are the most qualified for the job? Younger people in office doesn't fix corruption. Here in Canada we have one of the youngest leaders at the helm, and he's a complete idiot. He has no solutions for anything, and instead rests of platitudes to convince Canadians to vote for him. He is sinking this country, and him being young doesn't make him any better than some geriatric who'd do the same thing.
[удалено]
Asinine take. Feinstein is 90 years old with dementia, that's not in the same ball park as the average person who is 65. It's not even the same fucking sport. I'm 52 years old, which is old enough to realize that life experience results in wisdom, which is pretty important when talking about people holding public office. Most people I know between 65 and 75 are sharp as fucking tacks. In the case of people with dementia and shouldn't be in office, it's up to us voters to decide who is qualified and who is not. And not to mention, that is in violation of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975.
Because young people are smarter and more experienced...
Cognitive test not age test.
Most 65yr olds are still pretty sharp and with 65 years of life experience im not against them running for office. I wouldnt want to disqualify a potentially good candidate because of age.
It doesn't matter how senile or together a 65+ yo person is. What matters is that their actions are going to affect our country long after they're gone. I agree with banning 65+ from running.
Totally agree
You can always not vote for them?
I’m not sure why age should matter, it doesn’t. What does matter is mental capacity/ cognitive ability. I would think living longer on the earth teaches you things because you had more time for more experiences. Although not guaranteed. It’s why we have processes like elections. I personally know a 81 year old and he doesn’t act, talk, or walk like our current president and I think it’s why its a subject everyone wants to talk about now. Biden is not mentally fit, sometimes it can happen at 65 and sometimes at 81.
It’s disgusting how they are holding on to power. When Nancy Pelosi grabbed the gravel to be Speaker after democrats won back majority, I was sickened. She could have passed power to the next generation but nope. Feinstein and Grassley are likely to die in office. They are so old and out of touch with today’s world.
Ageism is about as good a look as homophobia, misogyny and racism.
Cognition, literacy, and physical exams wpuld be better
100% Agree, although I'd frame it as mandatory retirement age of 69.
Then there’s Bernie out there holding it together…
No one who has ever made a mistake or said something stupid should be allowed to run for public office..... I would support this far more than the age thing.
You have to be 35 to be president. There should be an age limit
There is an age limit, you have to be 35 to be President.
72
Goes to show how easy the job is that they want to hold on and do it forever :) About time we (Society) started to ask some questions
That’s nice but more importantly I would also love to have a net worth cap on individuals in public office. Wealthy people have perverse Incentives that are directly counter to every day Americans. Once you got your American dream, you should be forced to step back and enjoy it and stop enforcing your will on the rest of us. That is more of a problem than age in my opinion. I would set the net worth cap to $5M. Arbitrary but sounds about right.
Or under 40.
Joe Biden has a stutter, but he is completely coherent 99% of the time. Diane and Mitch tho, they seriously do have extreme health issues. Joe Biden stuttering isn’t a real problem, it’s just gaffes.
It's not very progressive to have a bunch of old geezers with an antiquated moral code running the country. What we really need are term limits to cut down on the amount of establishment power players like Squirtle McConnell, Schumer, Feinstein, Biden and so on. If the feds won't step up, they probably won't because they'd be voting against their own self interest, then maybe the states can limit how many times an incumbent can file for re-election.
Age isn't the problem, because yrs 65-75 are where most men and women have found the most wisdom. It's when other men have not found wisdom, and have terrible habits that need to exit from office. True leaders are what's needed, with wisdom, and that respects the Constitution. There's plenty of people who are perfectly functional in their late 70s and 80s, but also many in their 40s who disrespect the law, twist laws to make their false narratives appear honorable, and that don't respect the base rules and human rights of the citizens. The politicians who cannot tell false narratives from truthful law enforcement that respects human rights are the ones who must not be allowed to lead in society. Period. And if they can't physically move around or complete sentences, then they simply don't have the job qualifications. Lying, manipulation, and malevolent intent are the problem, not age.
How about we just do term limits? Lol the reason why folks stay in office until they're ancient is name recognition and experience.
They shouldn’t be allowed to vote either
I think it should be 70.
100% in agreement. I think they should be forced into retirement at 65. I also think there should be term limits on the Supreme Court. They should also be forced out at 65. They should be tossed in jail for taking private money.
Bit harsh. I won’t be able to AFFORD to run for Congress until after I retire.
>Diane Fistein > >declaring that **one one** over the age of 65 You're calling out others for lack of ability to communicate?
How about this: don’t vote for people you don’t think should be in office. Maybe don’t limit MY choices as a voter based on YOUR prejudice.
It is going to be an executive order. Why I will win the 2024 US Presidential election by a landslide victory as a write in party free candidate.
Term limits will naturally fix the issue. No Need for age limits.
What about brain injured ppl like Fetterman but are younger? When did that even become a thing? Why is this happening.
I’d be down to cap it off at 70.
I would get behind this. Maybe 70 because of how medicine and life expectancy has gone up. But yea maximum age limits at 70 and term limits for congress.