Should their be Age and Term limits for serving in government. Supreme Court, Congress, Senate, Presidency - no one allowed to run if their term starts after 72 years of age. I say yes to both. DD
I'd honestly the trust decision making of many 75 year olds with integrity and intelligence over a lot of the half wit 45 or younger QAnon and conspiracy theorists in Congress right now. I'd like to see a "3 strikes and you're out" policy for all of them for lying, hate messaging towards others, and slander. Maybe that would force them to stop with spurting hateful rhetoric and blatant lies simply to incite or deceive Americans.
Term limits, absolutely. Age limits, no. If you’re not an incumbent it’s going to be a hard sale to get elected as an 80 year old candidate with health and mental decline issues, so I think the age issue will solve itself. But if you’re spry and sharp as a tack at 80, why not?
that has not proven to be true....Grasserly, McConnel, Feinstein, Warren, Pelosi - all of them should not be in government they should have been forced into retirement ...like in my system you could get elected at 71 and serve - but not 72.......that way the worst we have is a 6 year Senator that is 77.... In the SC, there should be an age cap of 75 and you have to retire.....SC could have 10 year terms. DD
No to both for elected positions. Vote them out if they become ineffectual. Yes to term limits for appointed positions.
But if you had term limits, that would have likely prevented the age limit problem from coming up. At the end of the day, we have to be able to replace those who are not mentally fit to serve (Feinstein for sure, and likely Mitch), similar to the powers granted in the 25th.
In the past I lived in small towns and sparsely populated areas, and so the chances there were a number of qualified candidates were pretty slim. And I was of the belief it was the voters' responsibility to get rid of ineffective elected officials. That said, its clear voters can't be depended upon. So term limits make sense. Unfortunately can't require a competency requirement... that could get rid of dimwits like bobert, mtg, tc...
Yes, on term limits which I think would help with the age limit, poor Turtle froze up again today in KY and I am afraid something is going to happen to him, I may not like his politics, but I don't want to see the poor guy keel over either. While I agree with Deb that in this environment, I would trust some of our seniors over some of the newbies, I think moving forward we have to draw a line somewhere and I think it would be a great debate. We have to do better when someone should retire but can't because of politics, Feinstein can't tell what day it is half the time, I love that lady but dam, go enjoy retirement but she cant due to how the politics work.........if you're a dem and you retire just pick another dem to finish out the term, same with the gop, don't make it so dam hard. Most of the time, politicians make it twice as hard to get things accomplished, especially if you want to expedite something as simple as this.
Important to keep in mind that you cannot do this without first writing new laws that bans lobbying in DC. Like.... none at all. Not just a little change here and there. The reason is when new members of Congress are sworn in, they are often taken under the wings of senior Senators or House members. They rely on the senior members for help on staffing, access to legal experts, and even for things as simple as knowing where to go, and when. If you make it a law that these senior members have to retire at a certain age, or after a couple terms, you are going to then make the lobbyists the kings of Congress. Also I'm pretty sure an age limit will be unconstitutional. In theory this sounds great. Would love to see Feinstein, McConnel, etc. all pass the torch. However it hasn't been done yet for good reason. If we can kick out lobbyists then absolutely... 110%... sign the bill tomorrow.
No as to age limits. Voters can decide on competency, at least in the primaries. Yes as to term limits for the President and U.S. Supreme Court. I would propose 4 years for the President (to avoid the distraction of running for reelection, and the threat of an authoritarian takeover), and 18 years for a Supreme Court Justice. The President nominates a new justice every two years, cycling through a new nine in 18 years. No as to term limits for the House and Senate. The new members seem to be more extreme. The experienced members have developed relationships that help in passing legislation and getting the work done. Plus, if members were only around for a short period of time, they would probably be controlled by the lifetime bureaucrats / staff. Further, they would be subject to greater control by special interests / lobbyists if they are looking for their next job while serving the country.
It was only a matter of time before you just straight up started re-truthing Trump’s feed. Your schtick was always a joke. Drop the act and just be honest about what you are propagating for. Grow a pair.
it only took 6 posts for someone to get me to change my mind! a D&D record! you changed my mind on the age limit thing. makes sense. i dont dine with wealthy mexican industrialists, but i do a lot of business with high level executives in my field and the boomers are all gone. i dont deal with any of them anymore. im guessing that is the case in most industries now and with that in mind, its quite a contrast to see so many boomers and straight up geriatrics at the highest level of government.
