• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

53 of 100 US Senators are currently 65 or older - Is that OK ?

?

  • Total voters
    28
MaryP said:
I never knew populism had so many facets.
Click to expand...

It has one (1) facet, no matter if it's left or right wing populism.

"Those bastards over there are the cause of all of your misfortune, and if you hire me, I'll **** them up real bad."

Recently, we had a billionaire who pretended to be a man of the people, to protect them against "the elites," but who then immediately went after dirt-poor Mexicans, referring to them as mostly rapists and murderers. Imagine, thinking a billionaire was going to give a shit about the unwashed po'bucker masses. That requires a level of stupidity that makes you wonder how the populists remember to breathe.

We also had a populist left, the bernie or bust crowd, who have dug themselves in to resist any improvements at all, because they're sulking that Bernie didn't get the nomination, and in fact 10% of them voted for Trump to "teach the liberals a lesson."

In neither case is the actual politician the problem. The problem is the mouth-breathing idiots that idolize them.
 
Tender Branson said:
I think there should be an age cap of 65 to 70 to run for political office such as President or Senator or Governor.

I think very old people should rather serve out their retirement rather than being senile and in political office.

Most of these old people have no grasp of what concerns young people these days (climate change, racism, poverty) and they live in their 1950s/1960s mindset.

These fossils in office (Biden, Trump, Pelosi, Feinstein, Grassley, Turtle-Mitch) do no good to anyone.
Click to expand...
I think younger Senators have no grasp of the concerns of old voters these days. The way we figure out if one or the other of our arguments has political heft, is to use them in individual races and see what the majority in a given jurisdiction believes is relevant in a particular senate race.
 
Another angle of this is "The will of the people isn't good enough, we need to slap qualifiers and restrictions on eligibility".
 
Hamish Howl said:
It has one (1) facet, no matter if it's left or right wing populism.

"Those bastards over there are the cause of all of your misfortune, and if you hire me, I'll **** them up real bad."

Recently, we had a billionaire who pretended to be a man of the people, to protect them against "the elites," but who then immediately went after dirt-poor Mexicans, referring to them as mostly rapists and murderers. Imagine, thinking a billionaire was going to give a shit about the unwashed po'bucker masses. That requires a level of stupidity that makes you wonder how the populists remember to breathe.

We also had a populist left, the bernie or bust crowd, who have dug themselves in to resist any improvements at all, because they're sulking that Bernie didn't get the nomination, and in fact 10% of them voted for Trump to "teach the liberals a lesson."

In neither case is the actual politician the problem. The problem is the mouth-breathing idiots that idolize them.
Click to expand...
Besides the Indian Removal Act, the only thing I knew about our first populist President, Andrew Jackson, was that at his inauguration, his supporters were crawling in the WH windows to get at the punch bowl. Sums it up pretty well for me.
 
Tender Branson said:
And yet they are still out of touch with the young people of today and the working-class. They only cling to power for decades in the Senate without ever having worked a normal job.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's the young people - by virtue of their youth - who are "out of touch."
 
Tender Branson said:
56 of 100 will be by the November election.

That is 56%.

Only 17% of the US population is older than 65.

Is it fair ?
Click to expand...
No, it's not right. It skews the perspective.

There's no remedy other than elections though.
 
NolanVoyd said:
Of course it's fair.

Each of them was elected by the people of their state.

Experience is a desirable trait in a senator.
Click to expand...
Tell that to Dianne Feinstein's constituents.
 
trixare4kids said:
Two terms, twelve years is enough for senators under age 65.
Why? Because being a politcian shouldn't be a career goal.
IOW, give someone else a chance to serve their country.



www.thoughtco.com

The Pros and Cons of Imposing Terms Limits for Congress

Learn about the pros and cons of term limits for Congress, plus find out about legislation creating term limits in Congress.
www.thoughtco.com www.thoughtco.com
Click to expand...
Congressional term limits violate the constitution.

I always wonder what makes someone who supports congressional term limits different from someone who supports banning guns.

The article you posted is pretty much garbage in my opinion. Ironically when discussing the pros and cons of term limits it left out the very reason the founders didn't support them in the first place, which is available in the federalist papers...this one by James Madison...Federalist Paper 53

"A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members, and the less the information of the bulk of the members the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them."

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 53

avalon.law.yale.edu

Lastly, I don't feel like looking it up right now but I remember seeing in a pew research poll that 88 percent of voters support term limits...a rare bipartisan opinion.

If 88 percent of the voters support congressional term limits, why does this same overwhelming majority keep voting the same people into office?

It makes no sense.
 
Tender Branson said:
I think there should be an age cap of 65 to 70 to run for political office such as President or Senator or Governor.

I think very old people should rather serve out their retirement rather than being senile and in political office.

Most of these old people have no grasp of what concerns young people these days (climate change, racism, poverty) and they live in their 1950s/1960s mindset.

These fossils in office (Biden, Trump, Pelosi, Feinstein, Grassley, Turtle-Mitch) do no good to anyone.
Click to expand...
Well it’s a problem because racism and climate change are non existent issues in America, so I don’t actually want people who falsely believe they are to be in charge of the system, because their attempts to solve non existent problems may drive the country to civil war.
 
trixare4kids said:
Thanks for your expressed permission.


How about you actually read what I wrote?


Good for you.
Click to expand...
That was kind of a non response, 'full of sound and fury, signifying nothing'
 
Tender Branson said:
I think there should be an age cap of 65 to 70 to run for political office such as President or Senator or Governor.

I think very old people should rather serve out their retirement rather than being senile and in political office.

Most of these old people have no grasp of what concerns young people these days (climate change, racism, poverty) and they live in their 1950s/1960s mindset.

These fossils in office (Biden, Trump, Pelosi, Feinstein, Grassley, Turtle-Mitch) do no good to anyone.
Click to expand...
The voters have opportunity to retire em if they feel they are not up to the job anymore
 
NolanVoyd said:
I am one.

I voted for her last time. She may not finish her term but that doesn't make term limits a good idea.
Click to expand...
A person with severe dementia is now representing nearly 40 million constituents. You don't think that is a problem?
 
Tender Branson said:
I think there should be an age cap of 65 to 70 to run for political office such as President or Senator or Governor.
Click to expand...

At the very least it seems like such a cap should be reciprocal with the voters: whatever age cap you put on seeking office should also be the age cap for casting a ballot.
 
People have a choice when it comes to who they vote for. Age can be a determining factor when going to the polls. Part of the issue is that some of these geriatrics are so deep rooted that their parties protect their seats at all costs. They will breath fire down the necks of someone willing to oppose them in a primary and spend money to protect their seats. The other problem with health checks is that the politician gets to pick their own doctor and their personal doctors always say their patient is healthy. They wouldn't be their doctor otherwise. In short, the system is broken.
 
Tender Branson said:
56 of 100 will be by the November election.

That is 56%.

Only 17% of the US population is older than 65.

Is it fair ?
Click to expand...
I voted NO.

Fair?

I don't think it is a question of being fair. I think it is a question of Congressional rigidity and stagnation.

I don't think our Founding Fathers would have expected folks making life long careers of Congress and as thus never planned old age limitation like they did younger age limitations. I am thinking they set those minimum ages to hold office based on the thinking one would be better suited to have that many years under ones belt for each particular office.

Life expectancy of a white male in 1787 was 38 years. Of course some of the Founders were older but that was not the norm.

I am certain the Founders knew of that and even then would appreciate the width and depth of knowledge one would expect in those beating the average but I also am of the strong opinion they never fathomed such an elderly bunch in Congress or they would have set upper limits.

I think: No older than 63 to run for the House. No older than 59 to Run for the Senate. No older than 57 to run for President.
 
Tender Branson said:
56 of 100 will be by the November election.

That is 56%.

Only 17% of the US population is older than 65.

Is it fair ?
Click to expand...
Yes its okay.I do not have a phobia against old people like the 8 people so far who voted "no its not".Our elected officials should have some actual life experience.
 
ALiberalModerate said:
A person with severe dementia is now representing nearly 40 million constituents. You don't think that is a problem?
Click to expand...
She won't serve another term. May resign this one. Not that big a deal. But I have voted for her in every election since she first ran for Senate in 92. I voted for her all those times because she represented me well, and became even more effective with experience until recently.


The solution is not to prevent people over 65, or people with lots of experience in the job, from being a choice for the voters.

Most old people do not get dementia, and there is no way to know in advance which will.

Just like most senators of any age, or any experience level do not get convictedon felony charges and can't finish, or have some other scandal orioles that pre ents them doing their jobs.

But those things do happen. So what other groups should not be on the ballot
 
Tender Branson said:
56 of 100 will be by the November election.

That is 56%.

Only 17% of the US population is older than 65.

Is it fair ?
Click to expand...

I belive in age limitations but also age minimums to be changed. No 40 year old is as valuable as is a 70 year old.
 
jamesrage said:
Yes its okay.I do not have a phobia against old people like the 8 people so far who voted "no its not".Our elected officials should have some actual life experience.
Click to expand...
I don't have a phobia against old people. I am an old people. 53% is way too many. People in their 40's have life experience too, you know. It's a different world these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom