2022 US Elections

frostbite said:
But on what basis do you make this distinction? You could argue in a similar way about the opposite. For example, why have term limits for the House? If someone keeps his seat for 40 years, then he has "experience, wisdom, and intuition", and apparently he is well liked by his voters. I guess you think that avoiding a power hungry incumbent who stays in power for 40 years is more important for the health of our democracy than the wishes of the voters.

On the other hand, all systems have imperfections, it is just a matter of counterbalancing the positives and the negatives. An age limit of 72 for politicians is not agism. It is just a realization that the possibility of having a failing but power hungry old politician with connections is much higher than having a "wise old person who is irreplaceable".


(There is no universal agreement on term limits, either. California has a limit of 2 four-year terms a lifetime for governors, Illinois does not have any limit I think. )
Click to expand...

How is it not? You are quite literally preventing someone, who may be completely competent, from running for office based purely on their age and not on their qualifications or capabilities. Age does not necessarily denote time spent in government, nor wisdom. President cheetoh first held office in his 70's and has the wisdom of a lobotimized lab rat.

As for term limits, they are not discriminatory as they are equally applied to anyone, regardless of age/gender/religion/etc.
 
frostbite said:
But on what basis do you make this distinction? You could argue in a similar way about the opposite. For example, why have term limits for the House? If someone keeps his seat for 40 years, then he has "experience, wisdom, and intuition", and apparently he is well liked by his voters. I guess you think that avoiding a power hungry incumbent who stays in power for 40 years is more important for the health of our democracy than the wishes of the voters.

On the other hand, all systems have imperfections, it is just a matter of counterbalancing the positives and the negatives. An age limit of 72 for politicians is not agism. It is just a realization that the possibility of having a failing but power hungry old politician with connections is much higher than having a "wise old person who is irreplaceable".


(There is no universal agreement on term limits, either. California has a limit of 2 four-year terms a lifetime for governors, Illinois does not have any limit I think. )
Click to expand...

It would be made on the need for newer ideas that are in sync with what (at a minimum) the medium of society are interested in. Newer generations tend to have different priorities than older people, therefore term limits would be a way to address this.

This would be different than restricting by age because a person who became a US Senator in their early 40s could be term limited out by their mid 50s - not because they too old, but because they happened to start young and their time is up. This would apply to the likes of Cruz, Rubio, Ossoff, Sinema etc.
 
Last edited:
WI_Red said:
As you noted, those positions are appointed and so are by definition different to elected positions. Right now the restriction is by age, but what is to stop the Army from creating a regulation that only men can be Generals? Or only white men? What prevents this from happening?
Click to expand...

@Raoul provided a much better crafted response.
 
Raoul said:
There is no mandatory retirement age for most federal jobs. Instead of making a one size fits all blanket policy, I think it should be done on a case by case basis. If someone is very good at what they do, has tons of experience, and wants to work until they are 75 or more, then that should be up to them.

Its a bit different in the military where there are throngs of junior people who need to be promoted, which means the senior people have to leave at some point. This is less an issue on the civilian side.
Click to expand...

No term limit or age limit for judgeships? SCOTUS?
 
MrMarcello said:
@Raoul provided a much better crafted response.
Click to expand...

Ok.....well then you obviously missed the entire second paragraph that is still sitting unposted in my browser tab. I am going to say the blame is 50/50 on both of us. Here it is:

The answer? Laws prevent that from happening. Laws that ban discriminatory practices when deciding on promotion and retention. Those laws are debated and passed by our legislatures, and I think it is crucial that we do not limit those legislatures to candidates and politicians who, in any way, must pass a clearinghouse for eligibility. It must be left up to the voters to decide who these candidates are. This is a flawed system, but it is far better than the alternative.

edit: I am going to refrain from editing my original post as it will serve as a lesson to future generations that multitasking while writing posts is not a good idea.
 
frostbite said:
For special groups it is not considered "discrimination" to have an upper age limit. For example, law enforcement officers and firefighters must retire at 57. For air traffic controllers, the mandatory age is 56.

In other Western countries there are age limits for other groups, especially for civil servants. For example, in Greece there is a mandatory retirement age for University professors in public universities at 67, and now the professors are asking to raise this limit to 75 (voluntary retirement age is 62, I think).

Of course, there is no age limit in the Greek parliament, not because they are worried about "age discrimination" but because they make the laws and they prefer to stay in their powerful positions for as long as possible. The same is true in the USA, and I am sure they will never vote for either term limits or age restrictions, they enjoy having power.
Click to expand...

I agree with none of those regulations. They are perfect examples of using arbitrary criteria to limit a person’s opportunity. Police and Firefighters should have rigorous physical and mental exams every year that must be passed to continue employment. I have known some fat assed 30 something cops that would have a heart attack watching someone run and 60 year old former cops who ran marathons. Which of those is better able to perform? Similar in academia where there are some brilliant professors I work with who are in their 70’s whose mandatory retirement would be a loss for science. Job performance, and not random criteria, should be the standard by which someone’s continued employment is determined. Just because voters or whoever can not do what is needed does not mean we need to force it by discriminatory laws.
 
WI_Red said:
I agree with none of those regulations. They are perfect examples of using arbitrary criteria to limit a person’s opportunity. Police and Firefighters should have rigorous physical and mental exams every year that must be passed to continue employment. I have known some fat assed 30 something cops that would have a heart attack watching someone run and 60 year old former cops who ran marathons. Which of those is better able to perform? Similar in academia where there are some brilliant professors I work with who are in their 70’s whose mandatory retirement would be a loss for science. Job performance, and not random criteria, should be the standard by which someone’s continued employment is determined. Just because voters or whoever can not do what is needed does not mean we need to force it by discriminatory laws.
Click to expand...

I removed my comment because I realise I don't really want to discuss this topic. Cheers!
 
I am also quite against forced retirement of elected officials based on age alone. However, definitely pro term limits for senators and representatives. Power corrupts and even the most pure souls are gonna get corrupted after 20 years in federal offices.

Something like 2 mandates for senators, and 3 for representatives (who would be eligible to get elected for a single mandate in senate). 40-50 years in Senate/House is way too much.
 
Can you imagine how self serving the final 4 years of a senator’s career would be? They‘d spend the entire time preparing for their next role in the private sector, doing whatever is asked for them. Kinda like they currently do anyway I guess.
 
"If you can no longer stomach the direction that so-called woke Democratic Party ideologues are taking our country, I invite you to join me. "

This woman does not understand the proper use of "so-called".
 
This is not the time to look through old posts about Tulsi Gabbard and shame people for their silly opinions. Most of all because I can't be sure I didn't say "Tulsi Gabbard is OK" in 2017. These days I don't make a definitive statement about anything, in case I turn out to have been an idiot five years later.

That said, people said a lot of silly things about leftist champion Tulsi Gabbard.
 
nimic said:
This is not the time to look through old posts about Tulsi Gabbard and shame people for their silly opinions. Most of all because I can't be sure I didn't say "Tulsi Gabbard is OK" in 2017. These days I don't make a definitive statement about anything, in case I turn out to have been an idiot five years later.

That said, people said a lot of silly things about leftist champion Tulsi Gabbard.
Click to expand...
The signs were already there. I think anyone thinking she was great or the next big thing even 5 or so years ago should be questioned.
 
nimic said:
This is not the time to look through old posts about Tulsi Gabbard and shame people for their silly opinions. Most of all because I can't be sure I didn't say "Tulsi Gabbard is OK" in 2017. These days I don't make a definitive statement about anything, in case I turn out to have been an idiot five years later.

That said, people said a lot of silly things about leftist champion Tulsi Gabbard.
Click to expand...

Most had no idea what a nutjob she was early on (by early I mean pre-2015). She was on CNN all the time as a moderate Dem who could talk foreign policy, especially as she was in Iraq while in the Army.

It wasn't until she ran afoul of the DNC, then led by Wassserman-Schultz, that her path began drifting towards the dark side. This was initially masked by the fact that she was a Sanders supporter, resulting in lefties swooning over her, until the day she visited Trump to audition for a job during the late 2016 early 17 transition.
 
Raoul said:
Most had no idea what a nutjob she was early on (by early I mean pre-2015). She was on CNN all the time as a moderate Dem who could talk foreign policy, especially as she was in Iraq while in the Army.

It wasn't until she ran afoul of the DNC, then led by Wassserman-Schultz, that her path began drifting towards the dark side. This was initially masked by the fact that she was a Sanders supporter, resulting in lefties swooning over her, until the day she visited Trump to audition for a job during the late 2016 early 17 transition.
Click to expand...

In summary, she's just courting power and will now find herself in a financial windfall in lieu of. Perhaps prop herself up as a GOP nomination hopeful down the road?
 
Raoul said:
Most had no idea what a nutjob she was early on (by early I mean pre-2015). She was on CNN all the time as a moderate Dem who could talk foreign policy, especially as she was in Iraq while in the Army.

It wasn't until she ran afoul of the DNC, then led by Wassserman-Schultz, that her path began drifting towards the dark side. This was initially masked by the fact that she was a Sanders supporter, resulting in lefties swooning over her, until the day she visited Trump to audition for a job during the late 2016 early 17 transition.
Click to expand...

I can't remember if I ever liked her, but for sure I didn't think she'd end up like this. I've expected it for years by now, though.
 
The greed and ambition at all cost mentalities of these people, both sides but almost entirely on the GOP currently, is something I cannot wrap my head around. I am not wired that way I guess as I could not see myself ever compromising my values to those extents. It is just madness.
 
MarylandMUFan said:
I thought Tulsi had a shot when she took down Kamala during the debates (on her hypocrisy over her weed prosecutions). Even listened to her on the Rogan podcast and she seemed really levelheaded. A shame she went full on greedy opportunist.
Click to expand...

Might have been your first clue that she is a bawbag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.