Feinstein Dead

[IsntLifeFunny]

I'm going with a competency test every single election cycle. If you can't pass the test you are not on the ballot. 

[begooode]

I’m harping for sure, but there’s one unintended consequence that should be avoided at all costs — encouraging more unserious short termers. Picking on the recent magas extremists, for some a stint in congress has become part of building a personal brand by acting a fool in our attention economy that can be later exploited with a gig in the right wing media sphere. Fuck that.

 

[heyitsmeallen]

17 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I'm going with a competency test every single election cycle. If you can't pass the test you are not on the ballot. 

Hell, I bet half of the sitting members of the house and senate wouldn’t be able to pass a citizenship test or a 12th grade civics exam. I’m all in on giving them a competency test every election cycle. 

[Starkiller]

1 minute ago, heyitsmeallen said:

Hell, I bet half of the sitting members of the house and senate wouldn’t be able to pass a citizenship test or a 12th grade civics exam. I’m all in on giving them a competency test every election cycle. 

That’s appropriate, neither could half the people they represent

[Titans279]

25 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I'm going with a competency test every single election cycle. If you can't pass the test you are not on the ballot. 

 

What sort of test though?

[heyitsmeallen]

6 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

That’s appropriate, neither could half the people they represent

For sure. 

[Jamalisms]

41 minutes ago, Titans279 said:

What sort of test though?

 

"Are you X years old?"

 

A: Yes

B: No

[IsntLifeFunny]

45 minutes ago, Titans279 said:

 

What sort of test though?

That's a good question. I would imagine a fairly simple civics test. 

[oldschool]

1 hour ago, Titans279 said:

Term limits will also force out competent people, probably many more competent people, than a 75 age limit or something along those lines would

 

I said that already... its a negative no matter what.

[Jamalisms]

What exists is also a negative.

 

Give me a reasonable negative that ensures a minimum cognitive capacity.

[Starkiller]

1 hour ago, Titans279 said:

 

What sort of test though?

[IrishTitansFan]

Np

Edited September 30, 2023 by IrishTitansFan

[Titans279]

1 hour ago, oldschool said:

 

I said that already... its a negative no matter what.

Yeah, but I think term limits will limit way more good candidates than an age limit. I mean Feinstein was 90 and had health problems. Could do age + some kind of cognitive health screening.

[Strunk'sDessert]

I've dealt with plenty of data around cognitive tests, and it's very unreliable and subjective. Even if there's a strong correlation, it's far from perfect. I want that to be the way for a solution, but it can't be - not like asking a 70 yr old to take a driving test. 

 

Term limits are the easy answer, but as has been mentioned, could limit very capable politicians, even moreso than some random test. 

 

I know it's easy to blame the voters, but voters are limited on their vote by whom big donors offer up to vote, so that's also a dumbass notion. In theory, it's nice, but that's not how this shit works these days thanks to Citizens United. 

 

I think the only realistic solution is to limit absentee votes, not by count but by courses of time - if you can't vote for half your term limit or even less, you're not capable of representing your constituents.

 

The other idea would be to have candidates primaried after 2 terms in the House or 1 term in the Senate by a popular vote without big donor dollars allowed into the races, allowing the populous to vote before big donors. But that's never happening given those in power. 

 

Which seems like option #1 is the easiest. 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by Strunk'sDessert

[Guest]

Finding functional, capable, sane humans to run and serve in this current iteration in America is a multitier problem without an easy solution. 

 

Can you wish away conservative malfeasance and cultural panic to bring about sane and good actors? I'd rather have Feinstein as she is right now, rotting in the grave, that some of the actively harmful fucks we've got mucking up the system. 

 

I'm in agreement that term limits (not perfect but what is), could be useful--along with stricter laws impacting influence and grift. I think this would help in the courts too. This would also force the system to create better mentoring and cultivating new political servants. 

 

All that said, there is absolutely a line between ageism and defending and enabling what Feinstein was at the end of her life. You have to be able to serve. 

 

At this point, the will of the voters is what it is. To put it as politely as possible Americans are dumb, greedy fucks as a collective whole. Can't solve that overnight. 

 

@oldschool's comparison to a "pot head"---I would be 100% against discriminating against someone for being a former drug addict, and for strict drug testing--I truthfully don't care how hard these people party. 

 

BUT if someone came into office inebriated, and their drug use affected performance, they should be held accountable for that. Her age is not the problem--but age has affected her in ways that make her unfit to serve. You are right though in raising a red flag about implementing some kind of easily abused system--we know who the bad actors are and what they'd try to pull. When it comes to any kind of aspect of one's personality, though, you have to be able to do the job and it's not discrimination to ask that someone meet essential job duties.