politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
We just need a maximum age for running for president. Id like my president's to be of a normal working age. If you're going to be over 65 by the end of the term then that's too old imo since they would be older than 5/6 of the population.
Kamala would be over 65 by term 2's end. I think 70 is a good number but honestly I overwhelmingly agree with the sentiment. Make the max age lower and the right candidates will "magically" appear. The pecking order today sadly includes people in their 60s and 70s because we almost never elect different people for house/senate.
Which is because of how we pick committee positions. People with longer tenures get better spots.
I figured it was more about how people essentially ignore senate and house positions unless someone is retiring. They just vote the same way again and again.
All people talk about by and large is the presidential election. I know very few people who know anything about federal senate and house reps, let alone anything at all about state senate and house reps. They think presidents decide everything when what's really broken is congress. If congress wasn't f'd they could fix the supreme court. If they fixed the supreme court then dictatorial law (and draconian interpretations of law) would change.
In terms of committees, I figured the people who got the coveted ways and means spots were the ones with the most power and influence (money), not just old timers. Jason Smith is the chair of the house ways and means committee and he's only 44. Senate side is over 70, though senators on average are much older than those in the house of reps.
Maybe it was the way I worded my comment before, but I got downvoted for criticising that too many politicians are too old to still be in office. I got response from someone that age shouldn't matter if the person is competent.
Then it occurred to me that maybe it was boomers who downvoted me for hitting a nerve. And I should have responded that if there is minium required age to become POTUS, why shouldn't there be a maximum age?
That being said, it also occurred to me that there is ageism against younger people in politics. The voting age in many places do not want to be lowered as youths are told to be too immature to vote. But how come no one says old people are too old and senile to vote? I don't mean to go into old vs young people mudslinging, but old people have elected representatives that only benefit their own demographic and not for everyone in the country. One reason for the housing crisis is that old people elect politicians who do not want to build more affordable housing so as not to devalue their property.
Voting rights aren't handed out because of pragmatic reasons, but because of fundamental principals.You don't get to vote because you're able to make good decisions, you get to vote because you're a human citizen of a particular country and on that basis alone you get to vote. It would be very difficult to objectively determine who is able to make good decisions. And even it that were possible, it would be difficult to decide where to draw the line. Of course that children don't get to vote is completely inconsistent and the age that makes the difference is completely arbitrary. But to be honest, I'd much rather allow children of all ages to vote than restrict people beyond a certain age. Check out some Noam Chomsky interview of recent years, would it really be fair if such a bright mind was not allowed to vote?
Noam Chomsky is actually a really good example. Same with some practicing MDs I've known. Some of them work into their 80s or so as well. Why would we stupidly remove wisdom from our political set? That's just dumb, IMHO.
I think the problem is that the PFC is often not fully formed, on average, until 25. I still think people as young as 16 should be allowed to vote, though. However, on the other end, I don't think arbitrary years is worth anything (and will be increasingly worthless with time as medicine continues to change the game - imagine nootropics and life extension) - the important thing is mental acuity for the job, no matter the age. If someone wants to run for office and they are 250 (assuming for the moment life extension/age slowing/age reversal becomes everyday), I shouldn't care. What I should care about is their ability to do the job. Ideally, we'd even be able to screen out psychopaths and other troublesome traits, but give it time, I guess.
No you don't want that. That's one massive door to dictatorship if I ever saw one. Imagine the power of declining presidential candidates because you declare them troublesome.
Agreed. I am sick and tired of this country being run by workaholics. I want to retire some day. I want a candidate who shares that value, and is motivated to build and promote an economic, legal, and political environment where people can actually retire.
That means a first-time candidate should be no older than 57, and an incumbent no older than 61.