3 ms·
well maybe work on that "re-election advantage", understand and curtail it instead of instuting blanket (and imo insane) bans?
by lstodd 2y ago
well maybe work on that "re-election advantage", understand and curtail it instead of instuting blanket (and imo insane) bans?
- dcow 2y agoIf you’re old enough to retire and collect old person benefits you are no longer fit to lead not because you are might be incapable but because you are simply not generationally relevant. The office of president has term limits for effectively the same reason and nobody calls those insane.
- TedDoesntTalk 2y agoTerm limits on the presidency have nothing to do with age. You could be 35, serve two terms, and you’d still be banned from being president again … at age 43. The ND ban is nothing but ageism.
- dcow 2y agoIt’s not. Nobody is saying old people are subhuman scum who shouldn’t be treated kindly and with respect. The argument is that after a certain point you may not have a lived experience that is relevant anymore for being an effective political leader. The same way we wouldn’t put two 80 year olds in the cockpit of a commercial aircraft… the risk there is obvious and clear.
- pinkmuffinere 2y agoWhy are you not generationally relevant after a certain age? Would you say the same to Noam Chomsky, Leslie Lamport, and Donald Knuth?
- earthling8118 2y agoEven if someone could do fine, I'd prefer to skip out on them rather than let those who aren't fit through.
- dcow 2y agoWe should not strive to be ruled by wise elders. I am not arguing that there is no place for respect or that old people can’t have great influence and utility. Just that they shouldn’t be on the field playing ball.
- bilbo0s 2y agoThat's what's weird to me also. I honestly don't understand? Clearly the problem is incumbency, why are we going after age? It doesn't make much sense. The law is clearly unconstitutional and would be overturned without a change to that document. And a change to that document won't happen. But we can make laws to diminish the power of incumbency that would be in complete compliance with all constitutional parameters. I'm not even talking about the constitutionally questionable things like term limits. (Which, clearly, we could also try since people don't care about the constitutionality of the laws apparently.) I mean, why wouldn't we? Why are we nibbling around the edges? Let's go for the jugular.
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoI don’t think incumbency is inherently a problem. Having representatives that have experience is an advantage. The real problem is gerrymandered districts that essentially mean it’s impossible to lose, even if you aren’t doing a good job. And age is still a separate problem, there’s a different between a 40 year old wanting to serve 20 more years and a 70 year old doing the same.
- bilbo0s 2y agothere’s a different between a 40 year old wanting to serve 20 more years and a 70 year old doing the same No there isn't. Both these people will put your society into a world of hurt. They want to serve 20 years. I can guarantee that ain't for the benefit of the poor and downtrodden, any more than the district they draw up for themselves to achieve their dream is for the benefit of its constituency.
- dcow 2y agoAge is a problem and it’s not ageist to say so. What we’re talking about here is not a world where a 24 and a 56 year old cannot both play on the same ball team. We’re talking about elderly people. Your grandparents. I love the grandparents of mine that are still alive but my god are they nowhere near fit to lead a freaking country. One still uses the term “the gays”, one is losing their coherence in small ways, one has serious health problems which are the dominating factor in his daily routine. Seriously. I’m not saying you’re subhuman scum if you’re old. I’m saying maybe you’re past the point of political effectiveness and relevancy.