this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
42 points (100.0% liked)
News
7 readers
5 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't even think we should care about the decline. the important thing is fitness for the role. if he started out smarter than needed he should have been allowed to conitnue as long as his mental capacity is above a treshold.
No, we should care about the decline, because they will continue to get worse. A lot can change in 2 or 4 or 6 years.
whatever system is used to measure capacity can and should be used periodically. you can even test them more frequently if they are near another treshold in capacity
Who is "he" that should have been "allowed"? No one has been disallowed, that I know of. Someone was voted out of office a few years ago, which is a proper procedure in a democracy.
the law. the law should not allow it. it should be regulated. hopefully that clarifies it.
you should also think about the possibility of someone going from smart to plant within the period they are serving an elected position.
But what do you do when his constituents actually vote for the plant? I mean I agree as much as anyone that he is unfit for office and should not be there, but if the numbskulls in Kentucky keep saying this is the most qualified person they can come up with to represent them, who are we to deny them their political voice? We can correctly say that they must be dumber than a vegetable to elect him, but don't they have that right?
Are you saying that there should be a law against a standing office holder losing an election? I hope I'm misunderstanding you. If the voters decide that someone who is serving in an office should not be returned to that office, whether it's president, senator, governor or whatever, then that's what the election is for. Have you never voted against someone who was currently in office?
Both McConnel and Feinstein should have been voted out of office a cycle or two ago, purely on the basis of competency rather than politics.
No. I am only speaking in the most vague and general sense. I did not draft a proposal that handles any of the issues you mentioned. I certainly agree that it's not as simple as I described it but at the same time there is a large space of solutions that will make sense to some people (and not others) testing elected officials for mental capacity doesn't mean the testing needs to depend on election cycles. why should it?