Jamalisms Posted September 29 Report Share Posted September 29 We already have age limits on serving in public office. They're just minimum ages. It's it ageism to say that a toddler shouldn't serve? VaTitan 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jamalisms Posted September 29 Popular Post Report Share Posted September 29 It's pathetic that she was clearly not competent anymore and still served until death. Same for Mitch and likely others. CreepingDeath, rns90, heyitsmeallen, and 3 others 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted September 29 Report Share Posted September 29 37 minutes ago, Jamalisms said: We already have age limits on serving in public office. They're just minimum ages. It's it ageism to say that a toddler shouldn't serve? legally having to be an adult is not the same as setting some arbitrary age cap. What is the cap, 65, 70,80? I've known 30 year olds who can't think and I've known 80 years olds that are as sharp as ever. This is not the answer you and others want it to be. tgo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted September 29 Report Share Posted September 29 3 hours ago, oldschool said: Forcing someone to take a mental acuity test based on age is the definition of ageism... How are age limits for those too young not ageism but for those too old is? Btw I read this is pretty bad because it stops the appointment of new judges... I agree a test is bad, but she wasn't fit to serve. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted September 29 Report Share Posted September 29 1 minute ago, oldschool said: legally having to be an adult is not the same as setting some arbitrary age cap. It is if it's just as arbitrary as the old age side. Some people are mentally and emotionally capable long before "adulthood" and certainly before, for example, the age when you're allowed to be President. CreepingDeath, and IsntLifeFunny 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted September 29 Report Share Posted September 29 2 hours ago, tgo said: Exactly. I just think there needs to be more balance than there is right now. Serving into your 80's shouldn't be the norm, it should be the rare exception. Voters just need to make better decisions imo. You can't seriously think this. Putting this all on voters is wrong. The voters don't even have the chance to vote for serious competitors! CreepingDeath 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted September 29 Report Share Posted September 29 2 minutes ago, Titans279 said: How are age limits for those too young not ageism but for those too old is? Btw I read this is pretty bad because it stops the appointment of new judges... I agree a test is bad, but she wasn't fit to serve. did I say it wasn't? Being 21 to drink and 35 to be President are good example of the reverse. As for Feinstein, blame the people of California for sending here back to DC at 85. Sure she should have resigned but again, what age is unfit to serve? How are you going to make that distinction and then regulate it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted September 29 Report Share Posted September 29 4 minutes ago, Titans279 said: You can't seriously think this. Putting this all on voters is wrong. The voters don't even have the chance to vote for serious competitors! of course its on the voters who just blindly send these geriatric fucks back to Washington every cycle. Who else is responsible? Oh thats right I forgot. you are one of the ones here who absolves voters for their responsibilities. OILERMAN, and tgo 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titans279 Posted September 29 Report Share Posted September 29 (edited) 14 minutes ago, oldschool said: of course its on the voters who just blindly send these geriatric fucks back to Washington every cycle. Who else is responsible? Oh thats right I forgot. you are one of the ones here who absolves voters for their responsibilities. Voters are definitely partly responsible. Also the candidates themselves for running, the party for not being more forceful, the bigwig donors for continuing to bank role them and not funding opposition, members of the CA Dems who didn't challenger her... The idea all that matters is voters is naive. There was no serious challenger to her. Edited September 29 by Titans279 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted September 29 Report Share Posted September 29 21 minutes ago, oldschool said: ... what age is unfit to serve? How are you going to make that distinction and then regulate it? Look at the science of mental decline, legislate a max age or test however seems to make sense and move on. It's actually really easy, process-wise, which is notably distinct from being perfect and tailored to each public servant. You don't need to be perfect. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted September 29 Report Share Posted September 29 39 minutes ago, Jamalisms said: Look at the science of mental decline, legislate a max age or test however seems to make sense and move on. It's actually really easy, process-wise, which is notably distinct from being perfect and tailored to each public servant. You don't need to be perfect. When you are talking about forcing out competent people as a by product you have to be as close to perfect as you can. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamalisms Posted September 29 Report Share Posted September 29 7 minutes ago, oldschool said: When you are talking about forcing out competent people as a by product you have to be as close to perfect as you can. Frankly, when were taking about forcing out the very people who grasp at such power as would allow them to write the law itself, I see it as even less than remotely likely. But that won't stop me from suggesting the practicality of it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMax Posted September 29 Report Share Posted September 29 The main gripe I have with having dinosaurs in congress, or any branch of government for that matter, is they're out of touch with the world today. How can they relate? Jamalisms 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiscotitansfan Posted September 29 Report Share Posted September 29 Goddamn I didn’t include her in the death pool since I wanted to be contrarian and knew everyone else would have her rns90, and CreepingDeath 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted September 29 Report Share Posted September 29 1 minute ago, MadMax said: The main gripe I have with having dinosaurs in congress, or any branch of government for that matter, is they're out of touch with the world today. How can they relate? This is the real issue. Just look at the Facebook hearing a few years back. The commitee couldn't understand how Facebook makes money giving their product away for free. Zuckerberg dead panned "we sell ads Senator". IsntLifeFunny 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.