Feinstein Dead

[Starkiller]

44 minutes 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?   

The young ones can be out of touch, too

[MadMax]

16 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

The young ones can be out of touch, too

At least they (usually) have enough energy to learn and figure things out.   Then we have Lauren Boebert. 

 

My argument went right out the window.

[IsntLifeFunny]

3 minutes ago, MadMax said:

At least they (usually) have enough energy to learn and figure things out.   Then we have Lauren Boebert. 

 

My argument went right out the window.

When LTF said tests for all I was like man I don't think that will work for most of the Republicans in the House lol. 

[begooode]

When the impact of overstaying outweighs their contributions, it’s just a shitty way to go out while flushing much of their long tenured legacy.

 

The arguments of ageism are important, but so is the gravity of the role as 1 of 535 members of Congress. An 80 year old might be deemed not fit enough mentally and physically for certain important jobs and that’s okay. There are other ways to contribute, if indeed this is their calling.

 

Generally, the problems of advanced age in critical government roles (Congress, Supreme Courts) are from the tremendous inertia / advantage of incumbency. There should be some restriction/testing at a reasonable age limit before standing for re-election.

 

Term limits don’t work, and it’s always strange that people try to ‘fix’ something by repeating an empty solution rather than advocating for more creative ideas.

Edited September 29, 2023 by begooode

[titanruss]

2 hours ago, oldschool said:

 

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.

 

Forced retirement 18 years before the average life expectancy. You dont get the first 18 so you shouldnt get the last 18 as you revert back to basically a disillusioned cripple baby.

 

I'd even say you shouldn't be allowed to vote those last 18 years as your life is less affected and important compared to the rest of society. Of course, there would need to be a provision built in for senior care and retirement funding and a means to use them as a resource for advice and history and such.

[Starkiller]

In the end, it’s on the voters to pick the people they want to represent them in Congress. 
 

That said, what we need is something similar to the 25th amendment that allows the cabinet to declare the president unable to do their job. There would need to be a process to declare a member of Congress unable to perform their job and then they would need to undergo a battery of tests.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Starkiller

[begooode]

3 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

In the end, it’s on the voters to pick the people they want to represent them in Congress. 
 

That said, what we need is something similar to the 25th amendment that allows the cabinet to declare the president unable to do their job. There would need to be a process to declare a member of Congress unable to perform their job and then they would need to undergo a battery of tests.

I think this needs to be extended to the supreme and appellate courts, too.

[oldschool]

42 minutes ago, begooode said:

When the impact of overstaying outweighs their contributions, it’s just a shitty way to go out while flushing much of their long tenured legacy.

 

The arguments of ageism are important, but so is the gravity of the role as 1 of 535 members of Congress. An 80 year old might be deemed not fit enough mentally and physically for certain important jobs and that’s okay. There are other ways to contribute, if indeed this is their calling.

 

Generally, the problems of advanced age in critical government roles (Congress, Supreme Courts) are from the tremendous inertia / advantage of incumbency. There should be some restriction/testing at a reasonable age limit before standing for re-election.

 

Term limits don’t work, and it’s always strange that people try to ‘fix’ something by repeating an empty solution rather than advocating for more creative ideas.

 

what do you think setting an arbitrary age limit is if not an empty solution? At least with term limits you erase some of the desire to hold onto the seat forever and milk the prestige that comes along with it.

[begooode]

Just as a quick counterpoint, and I’m no Bernie bro, but that guy’s outward vitality, oratory command, and engagement at his age is inspiring, honestly. Dude had a freaking heart attack on a campaign stage 4 years ago and even though he’s slowed up recently, at 82 he still looks like he could run laps around people 15 years younger.

[begooode]

8 minutes ago, oldschool said:

 

what do you think setting an arbitrary age limit is if not an empty solution? At least with term limits you erase some of the desire to hold onto the seat forever and milk the prestige that comes along with it.

just can’t let it go of the hammer even though the problem is not a nail.  “But, look, I have this hammer…”

 

 

[CreepingDeath]

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

At least they (usually) have enough energy to learn and figure things out.   Then we have Lauren Boebert. 

 

My argument went right out the window.

Don't let those mental acuity tests throw out the good ones!

[begooode]

On 6/1/2023 at 11:47 AM, begooode said:

It rarely fails that questioning if term limits leads towards better governance/better decision making/better accountability gets twisted into tertiary arguments often casting doubts on those who dare challenge the premise.

 

Term limits have been implemented in state/local US legislatures to varying degrees since the mid nineties and the results are not compelling, not better at all. It's a complicated long-term analysis, and it seems like most of the research available on the topic is coming from 'sponsored experts' driving predetermined conclusions as much as anything else. Yet the popularity of term limits and their hope never seems to ebb.

 

This is one of those cases where 'conventional wisdom' needs to listen to reality. In vitro vs In vivo.  Term limits over time tends to lead to unintended consequences: less experience/less valuable institutional knowledge; more reliance on lobbyists (the recently displaced legislator); less accountability; more reliance and power to unelected legislative staff; potentially becoming more bureaucratic. These net losses are not necessarily overcome by the benefits of term limits and don't lead to better overall governance, which should be the goal.

 

page 202 onwards

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/79477/ButcherJordan.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

[Titans279]

I don't get why if a 30 year age floor is ok then why isn't some age ceiling? Yeah, it's not perfect but age limits are already established.

[Jamalisms]

48 minutes ago, Titans279 said:

I don't get why if a 30 year age floor is ok then why isn't some age ceiling? Yeah, it's not perfect but age limits are already established.

 

They're no different.

[Titans279]

3 hours 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.  

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