Absolutely, the advantage of having a president that is not an insane psychopath should be pretty clear, dementia or not.
But unfortunately it wasn’t to about half the American population! 🤥
That would make a lot of sense IMO.
I know there are people who are fit at a higher age than that, like Bernie Sanders.
But on average I think it’s detrimental to society to have an average age among law makers that is 66 years old (Senate). AVERAGE!
I’m not so far from that myself, and I’m fit as a fiddle. But I can still see how it is detrimental to progress to have politics dominated by people who are OLDER than me!
I have no idea what young people are doing nowadays, apart from being wrong on the internet of course? 😋
But I hope they value environment healthcare and a living wage more than those 66 year olds do.
Will it make a difference? IDK, but it doesn’t seem logical to have policies deciding the future to be set by people who are in the last part of their life. The future should be decided by those that actually have one, instead of those that could/should go on retirement tomorrow.
To put it in more practical terms. policies that decide the future should be decided by those who expect to live, work and have children in it.
Because, as John Fetterman and Bernie Sanders demonstrate, you can be 56, brain-damaged and mentally incompetent, just as you can be 84 and a have a brain that’s sharp as a tack.
I think public officials should be required to pass a mental acuity test - and possibly a physical too, so they don’t disappear in a hospital for months instead of doing their job because their bodies are decrepit - like airline pilots, truck drivers or crane operators. You have to be fit for the job, and that should apply to politicians also.
And just to be sure it’s fair, the tests should be public.
You could also say that with a life expectancy around 78 in USA, it is wrong to have an average age among law makers of 66 years old.
The future should be decided by those that expect to live and work and have children in it. Not those that can retire tomorrow if they want.
Should the public be required to pass a test to vote too?
The reason we don’t do that is because tests are famously easily rigged or biased. I’ve made exams before, I know when I’m asking a question not meant to be answered correctly. An age line is consistent. We have minimum age requirements for everything, a maximum age limit is a reasonable thing. Use social security’s retirement age to set the bar. If you will be over 72½ by the time your term ends, no election for you. That’s means a 70yo can run for office in the house, 68 for executive, 66 for senate, and 54 for the scotus (this imaginary world also has 18 year term limits for the justices on an every other year appointment cycle)
I also believe in a 4-3-2-1 term limit system, 4 terms in the house, 3 in the senate, 2 in the executive, and 1 in the judicial. That would max out anyone at the federal level at 52 years (if you got elected into the house right at 20½), which is more than enough time for a career and to subsequently fuck right off into obscurity.
Should the public be required to pass a test to vote too?
My opinion is that nobody should be allowed to vote without proving they have a passing knowledge of how civil institutions work. But apparently denying total ignoramuses and people who cast ballots at random the right to vote isn’t democratic, so this is not a popular opinion.
And then he went on to start a war with the Islamic Republic of Japan…
I’d take cancer-Joe over dementia-Don any day.
Absolutely, the advantage of having a president that is not an insane psychopath should be pretty clear, dementia or not.
But unfortunately it wasn’t to about half the American population! 🤥
Why not just introduce a maximum age for elected officials? Let’s make it 65 years and be rid of the geriatracy.
That would make a lot of sense IMO.
I know there are people who are fit at a higher age than that, like Bernie Sanders.
But on average I think it’s detrimental to society to have an average age among law makers that is 66 years old (Senate). AVERAGE!
I’m not so far from that myself, and I’m fit as a fiddle. But I can still see how it is detrimental to progress to have politics dominated by people who are OLDER than me!
I have no idea what young people are doing nowadays, apart from being wrong on the internet of course? 😋
But I hope they value environment healthcare and a living wage more than those 66 year olds do.
Will it make a difference? IDK, but it doesn’t seem logical to have policies deciding the future to be set by people who are in the last part of their life. The future should be decided by those that actually have one, instead of those that could/should go on retirement tomorrow.
To put it in more practical terms. policies that decide the future should be decided by those who expect to live, work and have children in it.
Because, as John Fetterman and Bernie Sanders demonstrate, you can be 56, brain-damaged and mentally incompetent, just as you can be 84 and a have a brain that’s sharp as a tack.
I think public officials should be required to pass a mental acuity test - and possibly a physical too, so they don’t disappear in a hospital for months instead of doing their job because their bodies are decrepit - like airline pilots, truck drivers or crane operators. You have to be fit for the job, and that should apply to politicians also.
And just to be sure it’s fair, the tests should be public.
You could also say that with a life expectancy around 78 in USA, it is wrong to have an average age among law makers of 66 years old.
The future should be decided by those that expect to live and work and have children in it. Not those that can retire tomorrow if they want.
Should the public be required to pass a test to vote too?
The reason we don’t do that is because tests are famously easily rigged or biased. I’ve made exams before, I know when I’m asking a question not meant to be answered correctly. An age line is consistent. We have minimum age requirements for everything, a maximum age limit is a reasonable thing. Use social security’s retirement age to set the bar. If you will be over 72½ by the time your term ends, no election for you. That’s means a 70yo can run for office in the house, 68 for executive, 66 for senate, and 54 for the scotus (this imaginary world also has 18 year term limits for the justices on an every other year appointment cycle)
I also believe in a 4-3-2-1 term limit system, 4 terms in the house, 3 in the senate, 2 in the executive, and 1 in the judicial. That would max out anyone at the federal level at 52 years (if you got elected into the house right at 20½), which is more than enough time for a career and to subsequently fuck right off into obscurity.
My opinion is that nobody should be allowed to vote without proving they have a passing knowledge of how civil institutions work. But apparently denying total ignoramuses and people who cast ballots at random the right to vote isn’t democratic, so this is not a popular opinion.
Its also been done before with pretty lopsided results. I hope you look further into the history of that one there bud.
Because what we get with what we’re doing now is better?
Uh, yeah. That question tells me you don’t know the history of your own country.
My friend, you have just as much access to the internet as I, don’t waste it on edgelord/jabroni takes on how society “should” be run.
That i can agree with.