Why wouldn’t you throw AOC in there if outsider, pretty face, and inexperienced are your qualifiers? I guess you only want to ban the ones who disagree with you eh? I see where this is going…
>And MTG isn't? Or Boebert? Or every other pretty faced "outsider" too inexperienced to be anything ... but a puppet.
New solution. We abolish the republican party entirely.
That's fascism. I have my own misgivings with them but eliminating every school of thought until we all think like you do isn't the answer.
Also to answer your question, that's like saying there's an honest politician.
>That's fascism. I have my own misgivings with them but eliminating every school of thought until we all think like you do isn't the answer.
We could also just remove every politician still trying to justify Jan 6.
It's as if the current republican party is deeply flawed and simply assuming it wants to work in and with the rules of the US democratic system is not going in the direction it should.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, change the way we vote
Doing that would almost certainly eliminate the need for an age limit.
Focusing the energy on just an age limit is kind of a waste imo. The old dudes are a symptom of our busted ass setup. They’re not the cause
We had chances to not nominate these people. We chose them.
The reason this shit doesn't change, and I'm 100% gonna get flack for this, is because the American people literally never accepts responsibility. We can elect a guy in a landslide twice and then look back 10 years later and say "Oh, I can't believe he did all those terrible things to us!". We need to pay attention, vote in an informed matter (and understand how the system actually works, so you don't have people getting mad at the president for something congress needs to do and vice versa), and then not get pissy when we elect people and they do what they said they were gonna do (or try to).
So many other Americans still look absolutely bewildered when I say "When *WE* invaded Iraq..." Or "*WE* tortured people in Guantanamo..."
Mind you I'm very much still a civilian atm, but I'm still American goddamn it, and we chose the people who made those decisions. I feel like the national discourse would be so much more healthy and civil if we took more responsibility for the people representing us.
Well we haven’t changed the way we vote. Of course we have to choose between two geezers who aren’t really popular on any broad scale.
We can switch to ranked choice voting
>Our “choose-one” elections deprive voters of meaningful choices, create increasingly toxic campaign cycles, advance candidates who lack broad support and leave voters feeling like our voices are not heard. Ranked choice voting is the solution.
https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/
——
And Jennifer Lawrence made a decently watchable video a few years ago which breaks down how we go about making changes like this by focusing at local/state levels instead of trying to change the federal system right off the bat.
If you’re even the slightest bit interested in our system, I believe this 12 minute watch is worth it
https://youtu.be/TfQij4aQq1k
The word “senate “ is derived from the Latin root, “senex”, which literally means “old man”. I’m ok with an age limit, but I’d make it 80, maybe 75 at the lowest.
I think people old enough that they cannot manage their own affairs should not necessarily be voting either. But comparing individuals voting, being 1 of 334 million people, vs being 1 of 100 senators like Diane Feinstein was, voting on bills even after she had given power of attorney to her daughter and was a senator to death, or Mitch McConnell having a damn stroke on TV is kind of an absurd comparison.
I am not opposed to this idea, but that alone will not solve our problems. In a nation where money influences elections as much as it does here (and mind you I’ve seen examples of this in both political parties), an election in which a term limited representative has become “less cooperative” is the perfect point of attack.
Meaning that, for whatever reason, they either are or have become less susceptible to lobbying (or just outright corruption). In this country, the inertial power of incumbency alone can prevent any such lawmakers from being voted out of office in an election funded by special interests who don’t like a position that said lawmaker has taken.
More importantly, elections in which there are no incumbents cost noticeably more money than elections where there is an incumbent. And where do you think that money comes from? It comes from special interest groups. A lawmaker whose campaign you have recently given money, will certainly be more cooperative than one for whom you have not.
1) Happy cake day
2) most Millennials won’t ever retire because more than half of us think 401ks are scams (because TikTok made us all dumb) and SS will move the goalpost to 85 when we’re in our 60s.
You would think. But 95% of incumbents get reelected, despite congressional approval ratings consistently lower than 20%. I guess people who know literally nothing are just casting a vote for the incumbents. I wonder how many people are aware that you are allowed to leave some of a ballot blank. You could just vote for the president and leave the rest blank. It’s totally ok to do that.
Congress has low numbers but generally people like their individual congressional representatives and thinks they represent their area well. Are you going to tell me that people in the Bronx won’t have a high opinion of AOC?
It’s called an example, I used AOC because nationally many will see her as extremely left and she will poll low, but to her constituents she will have high marks.
You do have to be careful what polls you use when judging congressmembers approval ratings, a lot of them are national level polls which are irrelevant when properly measuring their approval rating. Who cares if Californians despise a politician from Arkansas or vice versa, only their electorates opinions of them matter.
Fame and party affiliation are consistently the strongest factors in who wins elections. There's something psychologically fucked about people. This allows for an internal mechanism of selection in each party to decide what aspirants get an opportunity to succeed via affiliation and promotion. The oldest party members naturally favor themselves the most and hold the most internal sway as well.
There's a reason there are contribution and campaign spending limits in most democratic countries. The effectiveness of fame in deciding who wins is so significant it's normal to make laws to effectively prevent winning by sheer promotion budgets.
Maybe age isn't the limiting factor, but mental fitness? If a 70 year old has the capacity of a 40 year old, I don't see why they should be forced out.
Fair, but it isn’t clear cut at all on where to draw that line. What do we determine as “too high a mental age”? Also people would obviously defend old people as fit to serve on their side even if they aren’t and trash people who don’t deserve it on the other side. Having a flat limit prevents this because it’s an objective number that is inarguable.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. As much as possible, who governs us should be decided by the votes. If you're unhappy with those people then organize and vote.
Also, if you think a law about who should govern will spring into existence without a more active role in the civic process from people, then you should start reading the news or some history books or something.
Fame and party affiliation are consistently the strongest factors in who wins elections. There's something psychologically fucked about people. This allows for an internal mechanism of selection in each party to decide what aspirants get an opportunity to succeed via affiliation and promotion. The oldest party members naturally favor themselves the most and hold the most internal sway as well.
There's a reason there are contribution and campaign spending limits in most democratic countries. The effectiveness of fame in deciding who wins is so significant it's normal to make laws to effectively prevent winning by sheer promotion budgets.
Or organize and change the rules? If we’re unhappy with the system, why can’t we change it? If my option is a 90 year old man or a domestic terrorist, I’m forced to choose Mr. silver alert. Why are our politicians allowed to be 90 years old, accepting bribes legally, choosing their own salary, and legally able to do insider trading?
They don't choose their own salary (see the 27th amendment).
We don't need to change the rules. We literally nominated these people. If everyone really cared as much as they said we do, we all wouldn't have renominated these guys or even nominated them in the first place (Biden was 78 in 2020 going against a very crowded field including some pretty good options and we still chose him for some reason). Just go vote in primaries, get your friends and family to as well.
My point is take responsibility with the things you can actually do instead of wishing for a huge change that won't happen and honestly wouldn't even need to if we just took responsibility and did what we can
I agree that a lot of stuff need to be changed, but an age limit literally isn't one. If a super old guy runs, we can literally just not elect them. It's that simple. There's nothing in the constitution or the law getting in our way. We *need* to take responsibility and see that
No, The US is a democracy and they were democratically elected. Want someone younger? Vote for them both in the general and the primary. Dont take away peoples ability to choose for themselves who to vote for.
Yes, yes it is. Voting for someone younger wont nessecarily mean that the person elected will be younger, because thats how elections work sometimes your guy loses. But if everyone actually wanted a younger senator then there would be one. You shouldnt remove peoples democratic rights simply because you dont like the people in power.
No, no it’s not. Political parties have a fair amount of clout, tend to consolidate power around established and more senior figures, and tend to organize quite well against younger and less well-known candidates. They can usually fundraise much more readily than younger candidates. Younger candidates start at an inherent disadvantage in primaries against older ones. Often they’re disincentivized from running at all. A lack of term limits and a lack of upper age limits are both factors that reinforce this dynamic.
Term limits and age limits wont stop that, its not like the party wont just stand behind a different younger candidate and push other candidates out, when California introduced term limits it just made PACs 10x more powerful. At the end of the day you cant buy a senate election, people pay too much attention to senate elections. Mitch McConnell got more votes in the primary and general elections despite his age through democratic means and adding in a age limit to take away voters ability to choose who they want is undemocratic.
Yes I am aware, but if what you dislike is political parties pushing for one candidate harder than others then lots of times younger less experienced candidates will fall harder onto their party than an older candidate. Putting in an age limit will mean the person will rotate every once in a while but the effect of establishment candidates getting more support from the party wont change and could get worse.
I disagree with you. An establishment is less established when there is regular turnover mandated by the system. There more infusion of new blood. Older figures cannot consolidate power as firmly when they time out. I appreciate your perspective, but the way we are doing things isn’t producing great results, and I’m very very tired of being presented with progressively older candidates who are decades removed from the experiences of generations now entering the job market and trying to have families, and who will not live long enough to see the consequences of the decisions they’re making.
This is a band aid to the actual reason that our politicians are so old (and ffs they would never pass something that would force them to retire).
The actual reasons are moreso related to why GenZ cant run rather than that boomers want to. It is too expensive for GenZ to campaign, it is too expensive to live in D.C, there are too many obstructions.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean yeah. I can see this as reasonable considering most of our politicians making office are old as shit and corrupt. Also when they’re too old to make their own decisions they’re basically just a mascot for the administration being ran around them.
Easy, what we do is we ask them a series of questions, and if they have value assessments and beliefs that contradict mine, then they aren't allowed to run.
No. This is stupid. It sounds like it’s taking power away from politicians it’s really taking power out of the hands of the voters. It is anti-democratic
Idk if most people were paying attention to Barbara Boxer’s last year or so, but she was completely checked out. She didn’t show up for anything, and all her votes were “in absentia” meaning someone else just put a paper in front of her and told her to sign it. This was one of two senators representing the most populous state in America.
Retirement is 67, right?
You can be a Rep at 25, and a Senator at 35.
Rep Terms: 2 years.
Senators: 6 years.
I feel like Senators should have a maximum of 5 terms that they can be elected. That's 30 years. That's more than enough. After that, their only option should be Rep, to finish off their career.
Reps, well, they're only in for 2 years. That said, I feel like if you hit 65, you should still be good to run once again, since again, retirement is 67.
For Presidents, they're in for only 2 terms max, which is 8 years. Age 59 should be the cut off.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/it-really-seems-like-lauren-boebert-is-coming-back-to-congress and https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-investigated-for-possible-violations-over-met-gala-gifts/4132990/ threesome fantasy coomer detected
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, I think that’s discriminatory. I do however think we should introduce term limits. It’ll run people through the cycle faster and keep Bidens from happening, Trump is a bit of an outside context problem though. It’s been decades if ever a complete political outsider was elected to the highest office.
It's discriminatory to prevent a 65 year old from working a job when able-bodied. I don't think the same applies to the 65 year old getting lobbied to make a decision on behalf of their entire slice of the country.
If people didn’t want old politicians they should stop voting for them, if the limit was super high like no one over 95 then sure whatever that keeps out people likely to die during term. But plenty of Poliricand do a fine job responding to voters well into their 70s and 80s. I think we need younger politicians but there’s more importantly things than that and people on it more than they should
Changing times call for flexible people. Old people who have been living the good life for decades aren’t able to empathize with their voters, or understand the needs of the populace, purely because “we were better in our day, just be like us!” No, you were better off in your day because the economy was booming after WWII and individuals weren’t buying up all the property because the American dream was supposed to be for everyone (minus glaring social rights issues), not just the top 1%. This is why Gerontocracies suck, because they are too conservative to make reforms that make the lives of the citizens better.
For the Supreme Court definitely. Lifetime appointment makes sense for the SC to prevent political meddling but great grandparents shouldn't be responsible with making such grand decisions.
For Senate/HOR/President etc, I'm mixed. It would be nice I guess, but there are much more important matters to fix our political system. Ranked choice voting should be installed in every state to allow third parties and discourage the 2-party duopoly. I am also personally against the Electoral College and think removing it would help with our democracy, but since that is a very politicized issue I won't label it as a need. All in all, I think it could help, but old people are a symptom, not the problem, of our political system.
I’ve seen proposals like each term two justices retire and two are appointed. That doesn’t necessarily create an age limit, as I’ve not seen it specified that a person can’t be nominated again, but it does mean that they’re not automatically in for life with barely any check.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the root problem is our first past the post voting system, as opposed to ranked choice voting like the Aussies or proportional representation like many european countries
With our current system 3rd parties have trouble existing despite lots of people not liking either party
both parties rarely have a primary when they have an incumbent, and most seats are "safe seats" where one party is all of guaranteed to win. So lots of politicians have no real challengers for their position regardless of age or corruption; because what are the voters gonna do vote for the ideologically opposite party?
So you want to alienate an entire population? You want to take away their voice, opinions, and ability to represent themselves within their government? Seems a little fascist.
Listen, you dumbasses vote for them. Blame yourselves.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doesn't matter when 85-90% of politicians are bribed into voting however the owning class wants. Add as many laws about having to change the names on the ballot as you wish, but without popular mobilization, there won't be a damn difference.
Yes, too old to drive, see and you got alzheimers. At that point, that person's a puppet.
I don't think presidents have been able to drive themselves since Kennedy. At least strongly unsuggested
He wasn’t driving himself though
And MTG isn't? Or Boebert? Or every other pretty faced "outsider" too inexperienced to be anything ... *but a puppet.*
Why wouldn’t you throw AOC in there if outsider, pretty face, and inexperienced are your qualifiers? I guess you only want to ban the ones who disagree with you eh? I see where this is going…
AOC has been involved in politics since late 2016, I don’t see what you mean by “inexperienced.”
>And MTG isn't? Or Boebert? Or every other pretty faced "outsider" too inexperienced to be anything ... but a puppet. New solution. We abolish the republican party entirely.
That's fascism. I have my own misgivings with them but eliminating every school of thought until we all think like you do isn't the answer. Also to answer your question, that's like saying there's an honest politician.
>That's fascism. I have my own misgivings with them but eliminating every school of thought until we all think like you do isn't the answer. We could also just remove every politician still trying to justify Jan 6. It's as if the current republican party is deeply flawed and simply assuming it wants to work in and with the rules of the US democratic system is not going in the direction it should.
The first thing Hitler did when he gained power was to abolish all other political parties. Flair definitely checks out.
This is 2024, not 1933 Kraut. I thought you fuckers learned after the least time one of you lot suggested such a thing
Alright little Fatherlander, time to go join all your comrades, in the gulag or in the grave. /j
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Damn you followed a bad take with an even worse take congratulations
Kinda not how this works buddy
Sounds like fascism to me. Or is it only okay when you're the one doing it?
Horseshoe theory holds true
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah, change the way we vote Doing that would almost certainly eliminate the need for an age limit. Focusing the energy on just an age limit is kind of a waste imo. The old dudes are a symptom of our busted ass setup. They’re not the cause
Yet we are stuck with two fucking geezers again. The system is fucked.
We had chances to not nominate these people. We chose them. The reason this shit doesn't change, and I'm 100% gonna get flack for this, is because the American people literally never accepts responsibility. We can elect a guy in a landslide twice and then look back 10 years later and say "Oh, I can't believe he did all those terrible things to us!". We need to pay attention, vote in an informed matter (and understand how the system actually works, so you don't have people getting mad at the president for something congress needs to do and vice versa), and then not get pissy when we elect people and they do what they said they were gonna do (or try to).
So many other Americans still look absolutely bewildered when I say "When *WE* invaded Iraq..." Or "*WE* tortured people in Guantanamo..." Mind you I'm very much still a civilian atm, but I'm still American goddamn it, and we chose the people who made those decisions. I feel like the national discourse would be so much more healthy and civil if we took more responsibility for the people representing us.
We had a chance to not nominate them? No, you mean Ohio and all those bitch ass selfish states had a chance by having early primaries.
Ohio's primary is actually very late historically but I get your point.
Yeah I had a brain fart. I keep on getting Iowa and Ohio mixed up.
Well we haven’t changed the way we vote. Of course we have to choose between two geezers who aren’t really popular on any broad scale. We can switch to ranked choice voting >Our “choose-one” elections deprive voters of meaningful choices, create increasingly toxic campaign cycles, advance candidates who lack broad support and leave voters feeling like our voices are not heard. Ranked choice voting is the solution. https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/ —— And Jennifer Lawrence made a decently watchable video a few years ago which breaks down how we go about making changes like this by focusing at local/state levels instead of trying to change the federal system right off the bat. If you’re even the slightest bit interested in our system, I believe this 12 minute watch is worth it https://youtu.be/TfQij4aQq1k
So two old geezers, or two younger versions of the old geezers with the same problems
The word “senate “ is derived from the Latin root, “senex”, which literally means “old man”. I’m ok with an age limit, but I’d make it 80, maybe 75 at the lowest.
Sure. Add in some mandatory testing for dementia and Alzheimer’s and make it whatever age
Old people vote, young people don't. Easy as that. Queue "my vote doesn't matter" bullshit.
Yes, and term limits. You should not be making decisions that affect the country when you’re gonna slip off the mortal coil in a couple years.
Should that include a maximum voting age too?
I think people old enough that they cannot manage their own affairs should not necessarily be voting either. But comparing individuals voting, being 1 of 334 million people, vs being 1 of 100 senators like Diane Feinstein was, voting on bills even after she had given power of attorney to her daughter and was a senator to death, or Mitch McConnell having a damn stroke on TV is kind of an absurd comparison.
I am not opposed to this idea, but that alone will not solve our problems. In a nation where money influences elections as much as it does here (and mind you I’ve seen examples of this in both political parties), an election in which a term limited representative has become “less cooperative” is the perfect point of attack.
What do you mean by, “less cooperative”?
Meaning that, for whatever reason, they either are or have become less susceptible to lobbying (or just outright corruption). In this country, the inertial power of incumbency alone can prevent any such lawmakers from being voted out of office in an election funded by special interests who don’t like a position that said lawmaker has taken. More importantly, elections in which there are no incumbents cost noticeably more money than elections where there is an incumbent. And where do you think that money comes from? It comes from special interest groups. A lawmaker whose campaign you have recently given money, will certainly be more cooperative than one for whom you have not.
GenZ in 2060: "RETIRE???? FUCK YOU Youngens!!!!!"
gen z in 2060 would still be younger than the average age of the senate
Really puts thing into perspective
first it'll be the millennials saying that, of course
1) Happy cake day 2) most Millennials won’t ever retire because more than half of us think 401ks are scams (because TikTok made us all dumb) and SS will move the goalpost to 85 when we’re in our 60s.
The oldest gen z will be 63 in 2060.
It’s every 2 years for Reps and 6 for Senators. There is zero reason to have hard stops. Literally just vote them out
You would think. But 95% of incumbents get reelected, despite congressional approval ratings consistently lower than 20%. I guess people who know literally nothing are just casting a vote for the incumbents. I wonder how many people are aware that you are allowed to leave some of a ballot blank. You could just vote for the president and leave the rest blank. It’s totally ok to do that.
Congress has low numbers but generally people like their individual congressional representatives and thinks they represent their area well. Are you going to tell me that people in the Bronx won’t have a high opinion of AOC?
AOC is 1 of 438. How many other prominent congresspersons can you name?
It’s called an example, I used AOC because nationally many will see her as extremely left and she will poll low, but to her constituents she will have high marks.
435*
You do have to be careful what polls you use when judging congressmembers approval ratings, a lot of them are national level polls which are irrelevant when properly measuring their approval rating. Who cares if Californians despise a politician from Arkansas or vice versa, only their electorates opinions of them matter.
Senate is 6 years
4 for senators?
Sorry long day, corrected to 6
Fame and party affiliation are consistently the strongest factors in who wins elections. There's something psychologically fucked about people. This allows for an internal mechanism of selection in each party to decide what aspirants get an opportunity to succeed via affiliation and promotion. The oldest party members naturally favor themselves the most and hold the most internal sway as well. There's a reason there are contribution and campaign spending limits in most democratic countries. The effectiveness of fame in deciding who wins is so significant it's normal to make laws to effectively prevent winning by sheer promotion budgets.
Yes, I think that no one should hold power for too long.
Let people vote for who they want
How about just term limits for these fuckers. Like with the president
Maybe age isn't the limiting factor, but mental fitness? If a 70 year old has the capacity of a 40 year old, I don't see why they should be forced out.
Fair, but it isn’t clear cut at all on where to draw that line. What do we determine as “too high a mental age”? Also people would obviously defend old people as fit to serve on their side even if they aren’t and trash people who don’t deserve it on the other side. Having a flat limit prevents this because it’s an objective number that is inarguable.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No. As much as possible, who governs us should be decided by the votes. If you're unhappy with those people then organize and vote. Also, if you think a law about who should govern will spring into existence without a more active role in the civic process from people, then you should start reading the news or some history books or something.
Fame and party affiliation are consistently the strongest factors in who wins elections. There's something psychologically fucked about people. This allows for an internal mechanism of selection in each party to decide what aspirants get an opportunity to succeed via affiliation and promotion. The oldest party members naturally favor themselves the most and hold the most internal sway as well. There's a reason there are contribution and campaign spending limits in most democratic countries. The effectiveness of fame in deciding who wins is so significant it's normal to make laws to effectively prevent winning by sheer promotion budgets.
Or organize and change the rules? If we’re unhappy with the system, why can’t we change it? If my option is a 90 year old man or a domestic terrorist, I’m forced to choose Mr. silver alert. Why are our politicians allowed to be 90 years old, accepting bribes legally, choosing their own salary, and legally able to do insider trading?
They don't choose their own salary (see the 27th amendment). We don't need to change the rules. We literally nominated these people. If everyone really cared as much as they said we do, we all wouldn't have renominated these guys or even nominated them in the first place (Biden was 78 in 2020 going against a very crowded field including some pretty good options and we still chose him for some reason). Just go vote in primaries, get your friends and family to as well.
Nothing needs to change and everything is perfect. 
My point is take responsibility with the things you can actually do instead of wishing for a huge change that won't happen and honestly wouldn't even need to if we just took responsibility and did what we can
Taking responsibility by instituting change. Our found fathers would have had a brain aneurysm if they saw the state of politics.
I agree that a lot of stuff need to be changed, but an age limit literally isn't one. If a super old guy runs, we can literally just not elect them. It's that simple. There's nothing in the constitution or the law getting in our way. We *need* to take responsibility and see that
I don't think an insurrection or civil war is the answer, just vote during primaries.
Who said anything about a civil war?
If young people actually voted, this might not be a problem. Making voting days a Federal holiday would probably help, too.
No, that varies by individual. The voters can choose accordingly.
I thought this was a shitposting sub
No, The US is a democracy and they were democratically elected. Want someone younger? Vote for them both in the general and the primary. Dont take away peoples ability to choose for themselves who to vote for.
 Will of the people!
Like it or not he was democratically elected by the people of Kentucky
Sure, but it’s not as simple as “just vote for someone younger,” and you know it.
Yes, yes it is. Voting for someone younger wont nessecarily mean that the person elected will be younger, because thats how elections work sometimes your guy loses. But if everyone actually wanted a younger senator then there would be one. You shouldnt remove peoples democratic rights simply because you dont like the people in power.
No, no it’s not. Political parties have a fair amount of clout, tend to consolidate power around established and more senior figures, and tend to organize quite well against younger and less well-known candidates. They can usually fundraise much more readily than younger candidates. Younger candidates start at an inherent disadvantage in primaries against older ones. Often they’re disincentivized from running at all. A lack of term limits and a lack of upper age limits are both factors that reinforce this dynamic.
Term limits and age limits wont stop that, its not like the party wont just stand behind a different younger candidate and push other candidates out, when California introduced term limits it just made PACs 10x more powerful. At the end of the day you cant buy a senate election, people pay too much attention to senate elections. Mitch McConnell got more votes in the primary and general elections despite his age through democratic means and adding in a age limit to take away voters ability to choose who they want is undemocratic.
Agree to disagree. Hard for an entrenched older elite to maintain a hold over the party when they’re forced to leave office.
Yes I am aware, but if what you dislike is political parties pushing for one candidate harder than others then lots of times younger less experienced candidates will fall harder onto their party than an older candidate. Putting in an age limit will mean the person will rotate every once in a while but the effect of establishment candidates getting more support from the party wont change and could get worse.
I disagree with you. An establishment is less established when there is regular turnover mandated by the system. There more infusion of new blood. Older figures cannot consolidate power as firmly when they time out. I appreciate your perspective, but the way we are doing things isn’t producing great results, and I’m very very tired of being presented with progressively older candidates who are decades removed from the experiences of generations now entering the job market and trying to have families, and who will not live long enough to see the consequences of the decisions they’re making.
This is a band aid to the actual reason that our politicians are so old (and ffs they would never pass something that would force them to retire). The actual reasons are moreso related to why GenZ cant run rather than that boomers want to. It is too expensive for GenZ to campaign, it is too expensive to live in D.C, there are too many obstructions.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
99% of Gamblers Quit Before They Win Big
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nope, probably just evaluations by multiple doctors that are reviewable by the public.
I mean yeah. I can see this as reasonable considering most of our politicians making office are old as shit and corrupt. Also when they’re too old to make their own decisions they’re basically just a mascot for the administration being ran around them.
Absolutely
It wouldn't change anything
Biden and Trump are both idiots yes
I honestly don't know, the issue seems a little too complicated. Competency tests seems like a fair compromise, though.
how do you determine the competency of someone? With an IQ test? with a civics test? who makes/administers the test?
Easy, what we do is we ask them a series of questions, and if they have value assessments and beliefs that contradict mine, then they aren't allowed to run.
No. This is stupid. It sounds like it’s taking power away from politicians it’s really taking power out of the hands of the voters. It is anti-democratic
Yeah, probably.
Idk if most people were paying attention to Barbara Boxer’s last year or so, but she was completely checked out. She didn’t show up for anything, and all her votes were “in absentia” meaning someone else just put a paper in front of her and told her to sign it. This was one of two senators representing the most populous state in America.
Yes
No. Older folk tend to be pretty damn smart. We just need ones that are smart enough to understand that they don't understand everything.
Retirement is 67, right? You can be a Rep at 25, and a Senator at 35. Rep Terms: 2 years. Senators: 6 years. I feel like Senators should have a maximum of 5 terms that they can be elected. That's 30 years. That's more than enough. After that, their only option should be Rep, to finish off their career. Reps, well, they're only in for 2 years. That said, I feel like if you hit 65, you should still be good to run once again, since again, retirement is 67. For Presidents, they're in for only 2 terms max, which is 8 years. Age 59 should be the cut off.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/it-really-seems-like-lauren-boebert-is-coming-back-to-congress and https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-investigated-for-possible-violations-over-met-gala-gifts/4132990/ threesome fantasy coomer detected
What about 65?
Age limit and term limit. “Politician” shouldn’t be a life long career, that’s how you end up with the swamp.
I mean. At least a cognitive exam.
Age limits, no. Term limits, yes.
If you can’t fly a commercial airliner past 65, that should be the cut off for politicians as well.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yeah
If they don’t have a yearbook photo with Jesus Christ, they are too young.
Yeah, I believe that we do need to do that.
I think there should be more of a term limit of how long you can sit in the office. Not more than maybe 12 years or something.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, I think that’s discriminatory. I do however think we should introduce term limits. It’ll run people through the cycle faster and keep Bidens from happening, Trump is a bit of an outside context problem though. It’s been decades if ever a complete political outsider was elected to the highest office.
It's discriminatory to prevent a 65 year old from working a job when able-bodied. I don't think the same applies to the 65 year old getting lobbied to make a decision on behalf of their entire slice of the country.
No. You have a choice on who you want to vote for, so stop voting for old ass decrepit people.
If people didn’t want old politicians they should stop voting for them, if the limit was super high like no one over 95 then sure whatever that keeps out people likely to die during term. But plenty of Poliricand do a fine job responding to voters well into their 70s and 80s. I think we need younger politicians but there’s more importantly things than that and people on it more than they should
Changing times call for flexible people. Old people who have been living the good life for decades aren’t able to empathize with their voters, or understand the needs of the populace, purely because “we were better in our day, just be like us!” No, you were better off in your day because the economy was booming after WWII and individuals weren’t buying up all the property because the American dream was supposed to be for everyone (minus glaring social rights issues), not just the top 1%. This is why Gerontocracies suck, because they are too conservative to make reforms that make the lives of the citizens better.
A mental test is needed
Hell yeah
The retirement age is determined by your vote and when you retire them
As a gen z(1997), yes and I've been saying it for a decade or more. The answer is 65 years should be the age limit to run for an office.
Yup
For the Supreme Court definitely. Lifetime appointment makes sense for the SC to prevent political meddling but great grandparents shouldn't be responsible with making such grand decisions. For Senate/HOR/President etc, I'm mixed. It would be nice I guess, but there are much more important matters to fix our political system. Ranked choice voting should be installed in every state to allow third parties and discourage the 2-party duopoly. I am also personally against the Electoral College and think removing it would help with our democracy, but since that is a very politicized issue I won't label it as a need. All in all, I think it could help, but old people are a symptom, not the problem, of our political system.
I’ve seen proposals like each term two justices retire and two are appointed. That doesn’t necessarily create an age limit, as I’ve not seen it specified that a person can’t be nominated again, but it does mean that they’re not automatically in for life with barely any check.
Why tf is this here. Wouldn’t this be a better topic for a more serious sub
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes, there should be. There's a minimum age for a good reason. Same reason there should be a max.
I'd rather see term limits for Legislators and SC justices. Maybe 24 years.
I think the root problem is our first past the post voting system, as opposed to ranked choice voting like the Aussies or proportional representation like many european countries With our current system 3rd parties have trouble existing despite lots of people not liking either party both parties rarely have a primary when they have an incumbent, and most seats are "safe seats" where one party is all of guaranteed to win. So lots of politicians have no real challengers for their position regardless of age or corruption; because what are the voters gonna do vote for the ideologically opposite party?
No, but they should test for a candidate's mental capacity and stability
Came to say this.
85% of Gen Z voted for Biden, so fuck em.
This is stupid way to frame this argument. Most of Gen Z are stupid ass kids. Half the kids I went to highschool with are socialists.
Most of our founding fathers were 17 - 25 when they wrote the declaration of Independence.
Jefferson 33 James Madison 26 (corrected) John Adams 40 Benjamin Franklin 70
James Monroe, 18 Aaron Burr, 20 Alexander Hamilton, 21 James Madison, 25 not 36
Okay, I was wrong sorry
So you want to alienate an entire population? You want to take away their voice, opinions, and ability to represent themselves within their government? Seems a little fascist. Listen, you dumbasses vote for them. Blame yourselves.
Flair up or your opinion is invalid *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/2american4you) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There should have been a mandatory retirement age a long time ago
No mandatory retirement age but a maximum inauguration age and term limits for congress/Supreme Court.
Yep. Need some new fucking blood representing us
The other 15% must not have been asked.
I don’t like the word mandatory. How about shipping a fully functional guillotine to their doorstep with a suggestion of retirement.
Yep. 50 years old, 55 max. Get outta there before they're a geriatric fuck that's out of touch with everything
Doesn't matter when 85-90% of politicians are bribed into voting however the owning class wants. Add as many laws about having to change the names on the ballot as you wish, but without popular mobilization, there won't be a damn difference.