381
Mitch McConnell faces resign calls over freeze: "Cognitive malfunction"
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
381 points (97.3% liked)
politics
18881 readers
3580 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I think it's clear that people can be disconnected from reality no matter how old they are, and that older people are not excluded from being insightful and valuable to the political process (think Bernie Sanders and Robert Reich).
It's easy to feel like elminating older people from politics is a solution, but it's not. Voting for good people who actually represent your interests and the interests of your community is a better solution, but that's harder to think about.
You can't vote people into office who are younger when your only viable choices are people who are all over the age of 65.
Maybe, but Kentuckians have been voting against their own best interests for years.
Sounds like Kentuckians like to suffer. I say this as a Texan and my fellow Texans love to suffer and constantly vote against their own best interests.
Kentucky is inflicting their suffering on everyone else though, since McConnell was the reason for the shift in scotus by denying and then rushing appointments through the Senate.
I don’t disagree. What happens in Tx also has ramifications elsewhere. It’s just apparent loads of people in both states vote against their own interests and as a result vote against the interests of people out of their state. Until we get more people to vote in all elections the few will decide for the majority.
Looking at the last stats for Texas during the midterm elections in 2022 sat at 45% of over 17 million registered voters. In a state with over 30 million people, that means 8 million people decided those elections. Statewide and local elections voter turnout are abysmal. Last I checked for where I’m living it hovers between 11-13%. So if Texans vote against their best interests, I feel it’s the choice few making horrible decisions that impact the majority. A quick google search for Kentucky shows similar numbers. 41% voter turnout for midterms and it was lower than normal. The older bloc vote and the youth always stay in when looking at the numbers. Why would any older person vote for someone younger and less “wise to the world” in their eyes. If we want younger elected officials then we have to get the younger voters to engage and vote as well. At least that’s my opinion. McConnell keeps getting elected because younger voters don’t vote if they don’t feel represented by who is running. They opt to sit out, which is the worst thing to do. That’s what I’ve heard my peers say when I ask if they voted. If they don’t like what they see politically they just disengage.
Keep in mind that Texas and Kentucky have a lot of voter suppression going on, so low voter turnout is even worse than it would be from just apathy.
So yeah, they vote against their own interests but votes foe their own interests are lower than they should be.
I would agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that there is also a minimum age for office. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a grown adult is considered too young to serve then these geriatric ghouls are too old in my opinion.
Minimum for president is 35, senate is 30, house is 25. For one, I think those ages are "sufficiently youthful" to be generally representative of current modern concerns, all other things aside. They could easily be some years younger, possibly eliminated entirely, on the same basis as there is not a current upper age limit: let people be elected on their individual merits, and not exclude people on the basis of age.
I agree that there being a minimum age limit without an upper limit is contradictory, but a better solution would be to lower or eliminate the minimum. Perhaps some other kind of metric could be employed in place of a minimum age limit for federal office, like "having served as an elected official at the State level for two years."
I'd be okay requiring someone to serve as an elected official prior to serving in the House or Senate. Hell, I'd probably support mandatory public service for most if not all people for a period of time.
Logically, if you’re a candidate from any party, that knows they won’t be around in a decade’s time, what incentive, responsibility, or obligation do you REALLY have to do what’s best for ALL citizens— Including those who’ll be around for a few more decades. Especially regarding decisions with society-changing implications that’ll impact generations of change. It’s such a staggering conflict of interest that it’s not reasonable to expect any politician to set it aside.
That is even setting aside the obvious statistical likelihood that people over the age of 65 are significantly more likely to contract ailments that will impair their judgement and therefore their ability to do their job like Alzheimers (the exact same parroted reason for the minimum age requirement, that young people’s brains are not fully developed, and therefore are not able to perform the job adequately). If we’re going to arbitrarily set a minimum, we should be obligated to set a maximum.
Great, they can be advisors or join think tanks or other organizations. Robert Reich has no power. I'm a huge Bernie fan but even I think he's too old.