Here is my completely nonpartisan hot take. We should pass a constitutional amendment that ties the maximum age to hold public office (including judges) to the Social Security “Normal Retirement Age” at the time of passing. That is currently 67 years old. You can do whatever you want past 67, but you can’t hold public office.
In a lot of a states you can bring forward laws to ballots that amend the state constitutions with enough public signatures. I think in our modern day lack of a useful government officials we should use this tool far more often to attempt to ensure a healthier government.
What difference will that make? Also, what happens if/when life extension/age reversal becomes an everyday thing? Government regulations often move at a glacial pace, why fix something in place now that will be hard to remove when it’s completely irrelevant. We are even still saddled with the stupid EC and the idea that states all get 2 senators, no matter their population size. How long would it take to remove a rule like this that quickly becomes obviously ridiculous in the near future?
Young politicians will always have an incentive to consider raising the age limit. This isn’t a system that leads to irreversible change when and if the time arises where the limit is no longer appropriate.
She represents San Francisco’s billionaires. She has nothing to do with people making median incomes.
So in her world, support for Israel is a universally shared opinion
Having said that, it is in Russias interest to highlight the very real genocide in Gaza. By demonstrating the obvious hypocrisy of the Western “rules-based” order, they will make it easier for Russia to commit further atrocities in Ukraine. And for China to invade Taiwan. And America’s ability to credibly resist those efforts will be diminished - after all, the US enabled Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians despite international condemnation, so who is America now to object to the murder of Ukrainians or the annexation of Taiwan?
It’s an easy way to silence people you don’t want to hear. Someone who believes there’s sincerity in the sentiment doesn’t start off with: “For them to call for a ceasefire is Mr Putin’s message. Make no mistake. This is directly connected to what he would like to see.”
It doesn’t really matter what you justify it with afterward, you’re still essentially saying opposing “war” in Gaza is supporting Putin.
It also implies that anti-war protesting is something that is problematic and should be looked into. Or, rather than being pro-Palestine is wrong, and that it’s a sentiment that has to be caused by foreign influence.
Enough with the Hamas sideshow bullshit. You don’t have to be a Hamas supporter to be upset that Israel is indiscriminately killing Palestinians. At this point, anything Hamas did on 10/7 pales in comparison to Israel’s response.
It’s no secret that there are corrupt politicians either. I think we should investigate this ghoul and her financial ties to supporting genocide first before we use the secret police on citizens expressing a desire for peace.
If she was calling for both pro-Palestine and pro-Israel protest groups to be investigated for potential monetary ties to Russia, then I’d consider her claim to be more valid.
Imagine how out-of-touch you have to be to represent San Francisco and not realize sincere antiwar protesters exist.
Here is my completely nonpartisan hot take. We should pass a constitutional amendment that ties the maximum age to hold public office (including judges) to the Social Security “Normal Retirement Age” at the time of passing. That is currently 67 years old. You can do whatever you want past 67, but you can’t hold public office.
Do you want them to make the retirements age 90? I’d rather not give those assholes a perverse incentive to reduce benefits.
I did state “at time of passage” but we might as well say “at time of drafting” to avoid shenanigans.
In a lot of a states you can bring forward laws to ballots that amend the state constitutions with enough public signatures. I think in our modern day lack of a useful government officials we should use this tool far more often to attempt to ensure a healthier government.
What difference will that make? Also, what happens if/when life extension/age reversal becomes an everyday thing? Government regulations often move at a glacial pace, why fix something in place now that will be hard to remove when it’s completely irrelevant. We are even still saddled with the stupid EC and the idea that states all get 2 senators, no matter their population size. How long would it take to remove a rule like this that quickly becomes obviously ridiculous in the near future?
Young politicians will always have an incentive to consider raising the age limit. This isn’t a system that leads to irreversible change when and if the time arises where the limit is no longer appropriate.
She represents San Francisco’s billionaires. She has nothing to do with people making median incomes.
So in her world, support for Israel is a universally shared opinion
Having said that, it is in Russias interest to highlight the very real genocide in Gaza. By demonstrating the obvious hypocrisy of the Western “rules-based” order, they will make it easier for Russia to commit further atrocities in Ukraine. And for China to invade Taiwan. And America’s ability to credibly resist those efforts will be diminished - after all, the US enabled Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians despite international condemnation, so who is America now to object to the murder of Ukrainians or the annexation of Taiwan?
Aren’t you actually proving her point?
You’re saying that among protesters there are sincere ones.
A call for investigation means that there is a belief that among sincere ones there are also insincere ones trying to spin shit up.
Edit: of course downvotes. It isn’t even a secret https://www.mei.edu/publications/essential-questions-about-russia-hamas-link-evidence-and-its-implications
It’s an easy way to silence people you don’t want to hear. Someone who believes there’s sincerity in the sentiment doesn’t start off with: “For them to call for a ceasefire is Mr Putin’s message. Make no mistake. This is directly connected to what he would like to see.”
It doesn’t really matter what you justify it with afterward, you’re still essentially saying opposing “war” in Gaza is supporting Putin.
It also implies that anti-war protesting is something that is problematic and should be looked into. Or, rather than being pro-Palestine is wrong, and that it’s a sentiment that has to be caused by foreign influence.
Enough with the Hamas sideshow bullshit. You don’t have to be a Hamas supporter to be upset that Israel is indiscriminately killing Palestinians. At this point, anything Hamas did on 10/7 pales in comparison to Israel’s response.
It’s no secret that there are corrupt politicians either. I think we should investigate this ghoul and her financial ties to supporting genocide first before we use the secret police on citizens expressing a desire for peace.
If she was calling for both pro-Palestine and pro-Israel protest groups to be investigated for potential monetary ties to Russia, then I’d consider her claim to be more valid.
You’re 100% correct.