this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
916 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19120 readers
3385 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Has the appearance of a transient ischemic attack. But apparently "he's fine"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 56 points 1 year ago (6 children)

NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

No person shall hold an elected or appointed position past the age of 10 years younger than average life expectancy, to be updated each census year. A special election is held to replace the person when this age is reached in the case of elected office. A new appointment required in 30 days for appointed positions.

[–] hascat@programming.dev 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I like this, but I'd drop the special election in favor of disqualifying candidates who would age out during their term.

[–] Kerrigor@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago

Or just make it so the age is a limit for the start of their term, and if they age out, they simply can't run again.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Oh ya, that's even better.

[–] Blackmist 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

One of the few issues where you can legit say "both parties are as bad as each other".

Half these people should be retired.

[–] teamevil@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because it isn't right vs left, it's various flavors of have vs the have nots. Just half the have nots (probably more) are stupid as shit, according to the other half. Then we just bicker while they fucking fleece our dumbasses.

[–] MelonTheMan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Keep saying it. Everyone agrees and yet congress doesn't enact it 🤔 I'm just glad the oligarchs understand the will of the people better than us rabble!

[–] krolden@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago

Good idea. Much better than hard age limits as it may actually convince the boomers in charge to improve overall quality of life.

[–] Zyansheep@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Disaster happens, child mortality goes up a lot somehow, average life expectancy plummets below 25, no one is eligible for any Senate or House office 👀

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago

average life expectancy plummets below 25

I think our rules about senate qualification would be the least of our worries at that point!

[–] Kerrigor@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Well then the supposed Republican mission of "small government" should be accomplished!

[–] dragonflyteaparty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Well, then we update the law.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Maybe they would've done more to prevent the sudden drop in life expectancy. Then again they would also pass any law that could extend life expectancy. Like making it illegal to pull the plug, outlawing dnr, etc.

They would pass laws and sue over how the number is calculated.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Already you can be removed if you are unable to carry out your duties. It is the will to do it that is lacking. I don't think tying terms to an average life expectancy is reasonable. You could have a pretty wide range across states for instance and people would constantly sue over how it should be calculated.

I think a better angle would be to just set term limits. Set them longer for congressmen if people want.

[–] DarthDaddy87@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

I disagree. Maybe if their grasp on power was tied to the average life expectancy in their continuency they might actually make an effort to improve it. Sure they'll sue but, I think it's worth trying.

[–] Blackmist 1 points 1 year ago

I think most of the issues in the world right now are caused by career politicians who's only interested is getting re-elected.

[–] Docandersonn@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Can we put crystals on the palms of all elected officials?