Current Events > Politican seeking reelection....at 88

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/eleanor-holmes-norton-democrats-elderly-b2820818.html

Young people are never getting a shot at running things, are they

The DC rep doesn't get a vote in Congress anyway, so it's whatever I guess.

Mearcstapa posted...

The DC rep doesn't get a vote in Congress anyway, so it's whatever I guess.

This is why I really dont care tbh

People who were alive when dinosaurs walked the earth shouldn't be in politics.

Look I support DC statehood and Eleanor Holmes Norton's fight for it but CRIMINY LADY FIND A SUCCESSOR.

Retirement age should be the maximum age someone can win election.

Some people defend this sort of thing. They think seniority is everything and they're entitled to have a seat as long as they want because they may have did something good 45 years ago or whatever.

mystic_belmont posted...

Retirement age should be the maximum age someone can win election.

This

insisting that her seniority is a very important asset and not a liability

it is literally currently being a liability you dumb bitch

mystic_belmont posted...

Retirement age should be the maximum age someone can win election.

Thanks ya jerk, now retirement age is 88.

Man, some of The Founding Fathers were in their 20s-30s. Thomas Jefferson was 33. Alexander Hamilton was 21 years old. James Madison was 25. John Jay was 31.

Ben Franklin was the only grandpa among them.

Lady if you don't just live out the rest of your time in peace and just let someone else take over....

Should Bernie Sanders be pressured to retire too?

Akuryu posted...

Should Bernie Sanders be pressured to retire too?

Of course not. And at this rate, I fully expect for him to keep over the moment the Dems have a 1 seat majority in the Senate, and Vermont's Republican governor gets to appoint a whack job. And then when the Dems don't pass anything, they'll get 500% of the blame

Akuryu posted...

Should Bernie Sanders be pressured to retire too?

He's the only one of them left of center economically. Kind of too rare to put to pasture.

I can't pretend to get mad at who's in a symbolic nonvoting position, sorry

wanderingshade posted...

He's the only one of them left of center economically. Kind of too rare to put to pasture.

Are we putting this woman to pasture because she's old, or because we dont like her? If its the former, why wouldn't that apply to Bernie Sanders? He'll be 90 when his term ends.

wanderingshade posted...

He's the only one of them left of center economically. Kind of too rare to put to pasture.

God damn, the cult around this man is insane.

Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden are now economically not "left of center" now.

Akuryu posted...

Are we putting this woman to pasture because she's old, or because we dont like her? If its the former, why wouldn't that apply to Bernie Sanders? He'll be 90 when his term ends.

They actually don't give a shit about being consistent. Bernie gets special rules because he's Bernie and there's no greater principle than "but we love him!"

What are yall even trying to defend here?

Umbreon posted...

What are yall even trying to defend here?

She doesn't vote. She can effect literally nothing. People on this board want to squawk there should be an age limit (which isn't constitutional) while making excuses for the gerontocracy they like

LightSnake posted...

She doesn't vote. She can effect literally nothing. People on this board want to squawk there should be an age limit (which isn't constitutional) while making excuses for the gerontocracy they like

It's the principle of the thing. Democrats have a bad habit of clinging to their office to long and it causing problems. Bernie needs to retire as well, but I dislike how every time this criticism is brought up, there's a "But Bernie!" response almost every time. Yes, there a hypocrites out there, but why is pointing out the hypocrisy of some on the left the first idea and action of some liberals instead of recognizing very elder politicians can be a legitimate problem? Why continue to defend this "system" regardless?

RobertMuldoon posted...

It's the principle of the thing. Democrats have a bad habit of clinging to their office to long and it causing problems. Bernie needs to retire as well, but I dislike how every time this criticism is brought up, there's a "But Bernie!" response almost every time. Yes, there a hypocrites out there, but why is pointing out the hypocrisy of some on the left the first idea and action of some liberals instead of recognizing very elder politicians can be a legitimate problem? Why continue to defend this "system" regardless?

If you dislike them so much, run someone against them in a primary.

As it is, "but it's symbolic" is not something I find convincing. A problem needs to actually have a negative to be a problem. There is literally nothing Norton can change by running for reelection or not and you'll find a number of people dislike respect shown towards elder statespeople by the same people who supported Ed Markey.

As it is, some of this is just "How dare Eleanor Norton, someone I've known and hated for twenty minutes now."

age limit isn't the correct way to do it. i've met plenty of 80+ year olds who understand the world better then your average 20yo. no, critical thinking skills should be the gate.

I know I sound like a broken record, but... 88 years old!?

WesternMedia posted...

I know I sound like a broken record, but... 88 years old!?

You do, a really annoying broken record. The post above yours has the right idea.

monkmith posted...

age limit isn't the correct way to do it. i've met plenty of 80+ year olds who understand the world better then your average 20yo. no, critical thinking skills should be the gate.

Well yea... I don't think people are engaging in ageism for the sake of being intolerant. It's just this issue basically depends on people to self diagnose their suitability for the position, and a person with mental decline doesn't have the capacity to judge if they are still suitable for the situation.

wanderingshade posted...

Man, some of The Founding Fathers were in their 20s-30s. Thomas Jefferson was 33. Alexander Hamilton was 21 years old. James Madison was 25. John Jay was 31.

Ben Franklin was the only grandpa among them.

Average lifespan in the 18th century was between 30 and 40 years

Doubling the lifespan in two hundred years basically is why we have so many degenerative conditions now.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Well yea... I don't think people are engaging in ageism for the sake of being intolerant. It's just this issue basically depends on people to self diagnose their suitability for the position, and a person with mental decline doesn't have the capacity to judge if they are still suitable for the situation.

well dont make it an opt in self diagnosis, there are standardized tests for cognition and critical thinking, it would be simple to get a panel of impartial doctors.

Because of how Congressional fundraising works, there is merit to keeping someone around who has access to certain power players in the community. It should not come at the expense of allowing younger people in, but still...there are reasons for it.

SSj4Wingzero posted...

Because of how Congressional fundraising works, there is merit to keeping someone around who has access to certain power players in the community. It should not come at the expense of allowing younger people in, but still...there are reasons for it.

the original reasoning was that older legislators had decades of networking to lean on, meant that they could "reach across the aisle" and make backroom deals while saving face with their voters. and maybe before reagan that was a thing that worked. but the group of pedophiles have decided that a ride or die death cult is the way to run the country, and there's no room to work with democrats.

We literally have our current Supreme Court because of elderly Dems refusing to retire at the right time

That's not the only reasoning. A significant portion of legislators' jobs is to raise campaign money for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) or the NRCC. Ever wonder why sometimes Congressional representatives or Senators are not present at some votes or hearings? Oftentimes it's because they're busy fundraising. Fundraising apparently makes up anywhere from 30% to 50% of a Congressional representative's schedule.

I think John Oliver did a segment on it a while back...it fucking sucks. Pretty much every Congress person on both sides has lamented the process. This woman does not vote, so her only real purpose is to raise money.

divot1338 posted...

Average lifespan in the 18th century was between 30 and 40 years

Wasn't that largely due to infant mortality?

DrizztLink posted...

Wasn't that largely due to infant mortality?

And social position.

Still 60s was pretty much our 100+. Pretty rare.

divot1338 posted...

Average lifespan in the 18th century was between 30 and 40 years

Doubling the lifespan in two hundred years basically is why we have so many degenerative conditions now.

People were not dropping dead at 30-40. Infant mortality skewed it, but if you made it out of infancy you had really good odds of living to your 60s and more

suchiuomizu posted...

You do, a really annoying broken record. The post above yours has the right idea.

It's a jojo reference.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/c/c5f0c578.jpg

Context is that this is especially nonsensical since the guy in question is part of a species that doesn't age.