Why do we not have age limits?

That’s ageism.

Agree.

I think we should get rid of racist, bigoted misogynistic people.

Maybe I'm old fashioned.

Also, don't let the mainstream media set the narrative for you.

Eh, when it comes to limits, I kinda think we already have them. It’s just that for some reason people keep voting for people like Feinstein. They should stop doing that and someone should primary her to give people a choice (if they didn’t I don’t really know)

Age limit should be about 65 or three senate terms, whatever comes first. House of Representatives I'm less worried about (for the time being). President I'm not even that worried about as long as he or she listens to science and has truth to power advisors.

Cameron wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Eh, when it comes to limits, I kinda think we already have them. It’s just that for some reason people keep voting for people like Feinstein. They should stop doing that and someone should primary her to give people a choice (if they didn’t I don’t really know)

Feinstein was primaried and won.

Then I guess those voters for some reason weren’t concerned about her age. Or they just didn’t realize it and voted for the person whose name they’ve seen for 7 decades. Either way, the option to remove her is present. Judges on the other hand....

Cameron wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:Eh, when it comes to limits, I kinda think we already have them. It’s just that for some reason people keep voting for people like Feinstein. They should stop doing that and someone should primary her to give people a choice (if they didn’t I don’t really know)

Feinstein was primaried and won.

Then what’s your problem?

Cameron wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I think we should get rid of racist, bigoted misogynistic people.

Maybe I'm old fashioned.

Also, don't let the mainstream media set the narrative for you.

You're just spouting the same tired shit you always do. If you don't want to engage with the topic of the thread, don't open it. Certainly don't fucking post in it.

it's unfortunate that you don't appreciate opinions different from your own.

What’s happened to the Michigan house after we put in ridiculous term limits (3 2 year terms) has me pretty repulsed by the idea of any real limit. It’s pretty much a clusterfuck of idiots who just got here, will be gone next week, being pushed around by whomever has an interest in the legislation and has been in Lansing for more than a week and a half. I say just leave the decision when their term or age has gone on too long to the voters.

Cameron wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
it's unfortunate that you don't appreciate opinions different from your own.

Did you offer an opinion on age limits, the topic of the thread? I must have missed it.

age limits are wrong.

Is that better?

Cameron wrote:I guess I have less faith in the electorate than you do.

If someone put in a limit at retirement age of 65, and I wanted to vote for a 69 (heh) year old then why the hell shouldn’t I be able to

Then I guess the question would be where’s the line? And at a certain point in wondering that I think I come back to, well I guess there shouldn’t be one

Yeah why not. I agree

Cameron wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
age limits are wrong.

Is that better?

Was that so hard?

not for me.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I think we should get rid of racist, bigoted misogynistic people.

Maybe I'm old fashioned.

Also, don't let the mainstream media set the narrative for you.

That's 60% of the country, Bob.

There's a guy on here, can't remember his name but he hasn't posted in a while, who claims we get the government we deserve. Now if you start putting limits on things we might not deserve what we get. At least that's what I meant when I told Jimmy what to write down.

Turtleneck wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I think we should get rid of racist, bigoted misogynistic people.

Maybe I'm old fashioned.

Also, don't let the mainstream media set the narrative for you.

That's 60% of the country, Bob.

I fail to see a downside here.

I still don’t think we need to have mandated limits but there are certain people out there that I think need to realize they’ve outlasted their useful limits and that it’s probably best they step aside for the good of the republic. (Or voters to force that upon them. But problems may be too urgent for waiting for another 6 year cycle to come around) At a certain point, when you’ve been in charge for as long as you have, and it’s gotten us here, maybe it’s time to think about letting someone else drive the ship.

I had never seen a chart like this, but this seems bad. Especially in the type of Information Age that we’re in where maybe slightly younger leadership (say, 50 years old) might stand a slightly better chance at understanding modern problems

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I still don’t think we need to have mandated limits but there are certain people out there that I think need to realize they’ve outlasted their useful limits and that it’s probably best they step aside for the good of the republic. (Or voters to force that upon them. But problems may be too urgent for waiting for another 6 year cycle to come around) At a certain point, when you’ve been in charge for as long as you have, and it’s gotten us here, maybe it’s time to think about letting someone else drive the ship.

I had never seen a chart like this, but this seems bad. Especially in the type of Information Age that we’re in where maybe slightly younger leadership (say, 50 years old) might stand a slightly better chance at understanding modern problems

That trend... is sort of crazy. I wonder what would cause that.

Cameron wrote:I respect the consistency.

Honestly, if I really had my preference, candidates would be given a battery of cognitive, critical thinking, and ethics tests, and be required to reach a certain threshold to be eligible, regardless of age. But obviously this would require some sort of constitutional amendment, and would come with it's own massive set of problems.

I agree. And even if there's no threshold, they should be tested and we should see every answer - just as employers do when they test job applicants. We get the debates as pseudo job interviews, the candidates love touting their résumés, but we should also demand a testing process.

Look at the electorate.  In 2020 77% of people 65+ voted in Iowa.  When they vote for US Senator they’re voting for one of their own.

In GOP states, the back to the good old day’s resonates.  It’s why Reagan included he mythical Welfare Queen driving Cadillacs n his speeches.

In Iowa the older voters rail about government spending but don’t consider farm subsidies (and bailouts) as discretionary spending.

sεяεηιτλ wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:I still don’t think we need to have mandated limits but there are certain people out there that I think need to realize they’ve outlasted their useful limits and that it’s probably best they step aside for the good of the republic. (Or voters to force that upon them. But problems may be too urgent for waiting for another 6 year cycle to come around) At a certain point, when you’ve been in charge for as long as you have, and it’s gotten us here, maybe it’s time to think about letting someone else drive the ship.

I had never seen a chart like this, but this seems bad. Especially in the type of Information Age that we’re in where maybe slightly younger leadership (say, 50 years old) might stand a slightly better chance at understanding modern problems

That trend... is sort of crazy.  I wonder what would cause that.

The 1994 election, where the Republicans gained the House for the first time in quite a while, caused an influx of younger Republicans, recruited to be zealots for Gingrich, and the 2010 election was the "anti-Obama" racist election, which again caused another influx of younger Republicans.