The New York congresswoman said on the House floor that the justices' refusal to recuse from certain prominent cases “represents an abuse of power and threat to our democracy."
I feel like mandating a certain number of years in some managerial governmental position would be more effective. Trump is basically a living example of how to get around that. Honestly a lot of democracy kinda assumes people elect competent and honest leaders and a lot of humanity are just brainwashed morons so we’re stuck with what we got :/.
Well you can’t maintain focus on the topic if you start going down every branch. It just comes across as whiny and instead of constructive. It even caused your comment to be apathetic.
You were an experienced master or your craft at the age of 35 all the way 250 years ago. People made it to their 80s but your life expectancy was much lower. Basically 35 was the perfect age.
What we need is an amendment to make this reflect modern life.
Yeah… As it stands right now our first priority needs to be eliminating the ultra wealthys influence otherwise that amendment will be changed to “all non-wealthy debtors, convicted criminals, and the unemployed can be used as slaves.”
You were an experienced master or your craft at the age of 35
Yep. Gotta figure someone who’s 35 has been around the block, seen some things, knows some things, the office of POTUS doesn’t seem like one you should be able to run for right out of high school. Oh, but imagine if we could. I’m sure it would be hilarious to put a high school graduate in office. Especially a Gen Z kid lmao.
I’d support (HALF median life expectancy ±15 years determine at the start of the election year). Gives you a middleing generation so the extremes are not super underrepresented and it makes sure they have some life under their belt.
Yeah no. Look at what those numbers would actually be. Median is 70-80 depending on country and sex. I dont want a 95 year old president when they enter office… And 55 as a minimum is far beyond “life under their belt”
Absolutely. Housing crisis in full swing here and yet 55+ communities are somehow still legal. Infuriating that it works to the benefit of the old fucks by earmarking plenty of available units for only them, but when the young people want to get rid of it so they can have a shot at property ownership too, suddenly you’re an ageist.
Ah, so that’s why as we all know everyone above 26 is perfectly adult and competent
Edit: My point was not very evident but that study is not as clear as people thinks it is on the fact that brains are fully developed at 25. They probably keep developing for much longer. But it’s not an excuse to exclude people from politics
That requirement is so ageist as the brain is fully developed at age 26
The idea is to have some experience in politics in lower positions before taking on the hot seat.
I feel like mandating a certain number of years in some managerial governmental position would be more effective. Trump is basically a living example of how to get around that. Honestly a lot of democracy kinda assumes people elect competent and honest leaders and a lot of humanity are just brainwashed morons so we’re stuck with what we got :/.
That’s a great point. AOC has more experience than Trump did when elected.
I’m just upset that there’s no maximum age limit. If they are fine with a minimum why isn’t there a maximum?
You know why
What a joke that turned out to be
Yeah just means we get experienced swindlers
Yeah, that’s the idea. But then you have people like Trump come in and not have any experience.
deleted by creator
Whataboutism my man
So what if it is? The point is that the whole system is a circus sideshow.
Well you can’t maintain focus on the topic if you start going down every branch. It just comes across as whiny and instead of constructive. It even caused your comment to be apathetic.
deleted by creator
It is 100% whataboutism. There is no denying it.
It’s not whataboutism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/whataboutism-origin-meaning
Whataboutism is about switching the topic and reversal of accusation.
OP said that we have minimum age to be president, but according to SCOTUS it is a-ok to be a felon and running for the office.
A whataboutism in the subject of this post, where we talking about impeachment of Thomas and Alito would be “what about Pelosi’s stocks”?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
No one cares
“The idea” no longer means jack shit, unfortunately.
It’s stupid that there’s a minimum and not a maximum
Getting so old your brain starts melting was less of an issue back then.
You were an experienced master or your craft at the age of 35 all the way 250 years ago. People made it to their 80s but your life expectancy was much lower. Basically 35 was the perfect age.
What we need is an amendment to make this reflect modern life.
What you need is a new constitution. That shit is completely outdated.
Remember how we still have legalized slavery? Maybe we could amend that amendment.
Yeah… As it stands right now our first priority needs to be eliminating the ultra wealthys influence otherwise that amendment will be changed to “all non-wealthy debtors, convicted criminals, and the unemployed can be used as slaves.”
Yep. Gotta figure someone who’s 35 has been around the block, seen some things, knows some things, the office of POTUS doesn’t seem like one you should be able to run for right out of high school. Oh, but imagine if we could. I’m sure it would be hilarious to put a high school graduate in office. Especially a Gen Z kid lmao.
I’d support (HALF median life expectancy ±15 years determine at the start of the election year). Gives you a middleing generation so the extremes are not super underrepresented and it makes sure they have some life under their belt.
Edit: added “HALF”
Yeah no. Look at what those numbers would actually be. Median is 70-80 depending on country and sex. I dont want a 95 year old president when they enter office… And 55 as a minimum is far beyond “life under their belt”
Oh I meant half the median life expectancy. My brain didn’t brain good as I typed it out. So 40ish ±15 in your example. Even ±10 would be fine.
True. There’s this fun quirk of US law, though, that makes ageism against young people completely fine and dandy!
You can discriminate against people for being young all you want. That’s the Gerontocracy in action…
Absolutely. Housing crisis in full swing here and yet 55+ communities are somehow still legal. Infuriating that it works to the benefit of the old fucks by earmarking plenty of available units for only them, but when the young people want to get rid of it so they can have a shot at property ownership too, suddenly you’re an ageist.
And some old people lash out at me for stating the system is unfair. They need to learn to pass the torch.
What? Are you saying a bunch of racist slave holders might have also been ageist? Complaing about “kids these days”?
Then the fully-developed brain is just 9 years old when the person is 35! Should the requirement be higher? Semi-kidding.
Ah, so that’s why as we all know everyone above 26 is perfectly adult and competent
Edit: My point was not very evident but that study is not as clear as people thinks it is on the fact that brains are fully developed at 25. They probably keep developing for much longer. But it’s not an excuse to exclude people from politics