we have the option to vote, but the party picks the candidates in most cases. rarely are there primaries, parties stick with someone until they die. so it's not Young vs Old, it's Democrat vs Republican. and i vote regularly for both parties.

as to the doctor solution, i am not advocating for that. Ghot said he wants a council of people to decide, a second supreme court, and then i asked if they'd get tests from doctors to make their decision. at no point was i advocating for doctors taking away our choices.

i'm in favor of an age limit. thats the easiest solution.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jul 31 2023 06:42am

Sure but if the parties are routinely selecting inadequate people for the job, doesn't that point to a deeper problem ?

It is a two party political system where both parties seem to have no interest in running effective leaders, they run whoever they deem safe enough based on dystopian think-tank polling and lobbyist spending.

To me it seems like a completely rotten system so any solution would essentially just be a bandaid at this point but creating more barriers to entry seems more counter productive than anything IMO.

Some studies show cognitive decline starts as early as 45, if you are going to start limiting your options based on that type of statistical data isn't that a bit of a slippery slope?

i'm not in favor of a 2 party system at all. i've voted for democrats, republicans, independents, and libertarians. but we dont have many options to get out of the rotten 2 party system that actually work in reality. maybe some day that will change, but 2 things we can do within the 2 party system realistically to improve it are set term limits for senate/house (we already have 1 for president) and set age limits (we already have a min age, just need a max one).

driving around a rusted out 1990 toyota camry sucks, and sure a brand new car is obviously better, but sometimes you just have to slap on new brakes and fix the radiator because thats all you can afford.

I doubt many people in your country are really in favor of a 2 party system either, but that is the reality of it, as is increasingly the case in every other Western liberal democracy. The most fanatic supporters of either party seem much more interested in stopping the opposing party than improving or even maintaining their own.

I don't see why term or age limits would make a big difference, it isn't addressing the underlying problem of parties selecting inadequate candidates. To me it makes very little difference which Democrat or Republican occupies a position because whoever it is will tout the party line on every issue anyway.

And sure, I get that you have to work with what you have but the US is the wealthiest and most dominant country on the planet, don't you think the bar should be slightly higher than a 1990 Toyota Camry? Representative government is not exactly a minor detail, it is pretty integral to what America was meant to be IMO.

all issues with the 2 party system and representative democracy in the US face the same insurmountable issue, the people who can make changes to improve the system benefit directly from the system which serves them and not the population. most of the US govt is a sham designed to benefit lobbies of industry. so when you ask to cripple the 2 party system, increase accountability in parties selecting quality candidates, etc. what you're really asking is for the govt to police itself in a way the hurts lobbies. and those lobbies own both parties and by extension almost every single candidate there is nationwide.

i'd personally love for the to be a fix, its just that none of the ideas i've heard work.

in reference to the 1990 camry, i'd say it's accurate. the USA is a 1990 camry that can hit 200 miles per hour. china is a horse drawn carriage that has air conditioning for it's riders but is being pulled by 400 dying horses. europe is fiat hatchback, efficient but so gay.

But you see the problem with that don't you? If the system can't change and the system is increasingly removed from what the people want then how does it lead anywhere but violent revolution or tyranny?

If you dont trust the parties to police themselves themselves then why bother with the age limit anyway? What is that realistically going to change about how your government operates? If McConnell and Pelosi were replaced by 40 year olds who all support exactly the same policies would anything be different?

Bolded - lmao

don't get me wrong, i'm 100% a doom and gloomer who think's were headed towards an inescapable tyrannical future which is controlled by corporate overlords. we're already largely there.

but we're in a topic about Mcconnell freezing, so on topic i'm in favor of age limits. that doesnt mean it's a high priority issue i'm passionate about. the only issue i'm passionate about at all is automation.

Yes freeze it at 55 or so. That's just some random figure Im tossing out there. There could obviously be a better age based on average loss of xyz.

Politicians need to be at a age where they will absolutely live out the consequences of their own decisions.

no max age

people choose to vote these old people in

McConnell freezing is the most entertaining thing he has ever done though, personally I think important government positions should only be given to people who are 80+ so at least we can be entertained by them falling apart while they destroy the foundational values of western society to enable them to win one more meaningless election.