politics
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
view the rest of the comments
Didn't anyone ever teach you that correlation ≠ causation?
While the aforementioned health problems are a direct result of age, being out of touch isn't. If you do your due diligence as a politician, you can keep your finger on the pulse no matter how old you are, health permitting. Of the two people in my example, the octogenarian has political views and general mentality much more in line with the vast majority of people under 45 than the Gen Z fascist does.
Right. Because you cherry-picked the examples, then you're using that to wave away proportions. I'm saying, expand the sample size and you'll see that in general having ancient farts in high offices should be the exception, not the norm. If a correlation is strong enough, the connecting middle is kind of irrelevant for the purposes of the lower standard of justifying a bias.
Even Bernie, who years ago inspired hope in so many with his rhetoric, has all but given up, hearing him talk now many see a fire that's extinguishing. He doesn't have the energy to fight against the status quo within his own party anymore. A younger Bernie did.
As voting citizens, we don't give enough chances to younger politicians, when honestly we should be demanding it of the political parties to allow new blood to breathe life and ideas into their party, and provide us with more options.
Nope, I picked those two to illustrate that, while geriatric politicians are a bad thing in general, there are exceptions. I've never seen any of the people advocating term/age limits mention exceptions and was arguing against an absolute ban based on age and nothing else.
Maybe mandate some cognitive and policy knowledge tests every time someone, regardless of age, run for re-election. The senile out of touch ones from both parties would fail and so would younger idiots like Cawthorn, Boebert and Perjury Greene.
Nah, that's just his greatest flaw from even before 2016 continuing: being so averse to playing dirty that he goes to the other extreme and lets his competition get away with anything as long as worse exist. He's like a neoliberal in that one aspect, always have been.
Still not a lack of energy, he's just playing too nice with his allies who should be his lesser enemies. And younger Bernie didn't have much influence outside of Vermont and Washington since, this being pre-internet, the establishment decided which ideas got to most of the population. Like local public radio and tv enabled him to become one of the most influential people in the history of Vermont, the internet and the resulting ability to reach people without going through establishment tastemakers enabled him to build the (inter)national influence he always deserved.
I partly agree, partly disagree: on the one hand, I agree that there are far too many old and out of touch people deciding things, but on the other, there is such a thing as too inexperienced. A 25yo would be fine for local office, but I wouldn't trust someone THAT young to run a country. I'd say late 30s to mid 50s is probably the goldilocks zone, with exceptions to be made for exceptional individuals such as Bernie or AOC.
That part I agree wholeheartedly with, no notes.