this post was submitted on 28 Jul 2023
11 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

4 readers
11 users here now

@politics on kbin.social is a magazine to share and discuss current events news, opinion/analysis, videos, or other informative content related to politicians, politics, or policy-making at all levels of governance (federal, state, local), both domestic and international. Members of all political perspectives are welcome here, though we run a tight ship. Community guidelines and submission rules were co-created between the Mod Team and early members of @politics. Please read all community guidelines and submission rules carefully before engaging our magazine.

founded 1 year ago
 

"Just say aye," Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Patty Murray repeatedly pleaded to Feinstein during the vote. Eventually, Feinstein did just that.

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Thursday appeared confused and attempted to deliver a longer speech during a Senate hearing, the latest in a string of episodes that have raised further questions about her ability to continue serving in office.

"Just say aye," Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Patty Murray repeatedly pleaded with her colleague.

Instead of a short reply, Feinstein began her response by saying, "I would like to support a yes vote on this, it provides $823 billion ...." As the California Democrat continued to speak, an aide also intervened to try to remind the lawmaker that this was not the time for speeches.

"OK," Feinstein then said as Murray reminded her one final time to "just say aye." "Aye," she finally said.

[article continues]

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gentleman@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (18 children)

@Drusas Someone close to Feinstein needs to talk to her and make her understand how badly she is embarrassing herself and doing a dis-service to her constituents, the caucus, and the country at this point

[–] Emu@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Actually there needs to be an overhaul of the system, either age limit on senate, house and presidency which I agree with, or an independent medical examiner/s verifying they are mentally capable of carrying out duties (this wouldn't work and is too open to corruption).

Just don't let people serve after 60. It even works to reduce generational thinking that infects government policy.

[–] nobodyspecial@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Any sort of neuropsych evaluation is most likely not objective enough, and could be discriminatory. For example, against autistics, or for them. No need to have that value judgement discussion.

Just have an objective competence exam. Final exam questions from 101 courses dealing with geography, physics, calculus, world and US history, micro and macro economics should suffice. Have the tests written, proctored and graded by a panel of judges appointed by larger public colleges in the country. That should do it. If a 90 year old is still with it enough to get a passing score of say 80% and continue to do so for the next decade, then mazel tov, let them serve.

[–] joe@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I know what your goal is an applaud it, but have you taken any time to consider what unintended consequences this might have? Like, lots of people say stuff like "people who work in Congress should get minimum wage" and that sounds great, until you realize that the stance plays out to only allowing financially independent people to hold office. Is there any concern with, in your mind, with linking an intelligence test with being a representative, in a country that has routinely deprioritized the education of minorities?

[–] DrYes@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not the OP. I can easily imagine a test that, if someone cannot pass it, I can clearly say they shouldn't be representatives. While still weeding out cases like Feinstein.

Might there be problems with people who have the knowledge but have problems with the process of being tested? Maybe. But maybe those people also shouldn't be representatives. I don't know enough about the causes of test fright to be confident on that.

[–] joe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

>I can easily imagine a test that, if someone cannot pass it, I can clearly say they shouldn’t be representatives. While still weeding out cases like Feinstein.

Why are you sure about this? Do you think her issue is a lack of education/knowledge?

>But maybe those people also shouldn’t be representatives.

I'm sure you mean well, but this is a very dangerous sentence. What if the body or person that ends up with final say on the test has some thoughts on what a representative should or should not know, and those thoughts don't match yours? Like, in an extreme hypothetical, imagine if someone like Tucker Carlson had some input on what questions to ask and what answers to accept. What kind of person would that test filter out?

In a perfect world, a knowledge test requirement to be a representative isn't a terrible idea, but in a perfect world, it also wouldn't be needed, and most importantly, we are definitely not in a perfect world.

[–] blivet@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

> > > Why are you sure about this? Do you think her issue is a lack of education/knowledge? > >

Exactly. From what the article says, the remarks she was attempting to deliver were accurate and on point. She was momentarily disoriented as to what particular action the Senate was engaged in at that time.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)