Sen. Feinstein dies at age 90

[Aqua Buddha 14,598]

19 hours ago, David Dennison said:

One glaring problem on the Hill is that the system of seniority for committee chairs encourages people to stay on well past retirement age.

 

Don't discount that Senate staff are built in caretakers for the really old members.

[CooterBrown 18,014]

And South’s Austin’s mother is a street walker. 

Bullshit. She works solely from the comfort of her own home.

[Pato del Muerto 52,507]

6 hours ago, Lobo said:

Airlines do it every day.  Well, used to be 60.  Now it's 65.  But it's 100% mandatory, they strip your wings and bars immediately.  

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 hour ago, CooterBrown said:

 

Bullshit. She works solely from the comfort of her own home.

 

So you're too cheap to get house calls ?

[MagicSoccerSpray 1,732]

On 12/10/2020 at 3:12 PM, David Dennison said:

She is a perfect example of the utterly limp weakness that is the Democratic Party.

Gerontocracy

On 12/10/2020 at 4:49 PM, Lobo said:

There are plenty of 80 year olds that are cognitively with it.  In fact we're about to have one as President in about 3 years. 

Two years. For the sake of the nation I hope he can keep it somewhat together, but actuarial tables say probably not. At least he has an experienced, competent, loyal, and sharp vice president, right? Hahahahahahahahahahah.... sigh.

On 12/10/2020 at 6:11 PM, Bama Chick said:

And please don’t lump RBG in this bucket. Physical deterioration is bad but RBG died with her remarkable mind intact. It starts bordering on ableist when we start disqualifying people because of chronic illnesses or physical infirmities.

I am not in favor of term limits but I am in favor of a maximum age. I also think everyone in the House, Senate, and Executive should be required to undergo a cognitive evaluation every year and the entire results should be made available to the public. Voters should know if the candidates the are asked to vote for are compromised mentally. Yes, it’s a removal of a piece of the privacy but you forfeit that when you want to run for national office. I won’t go so far as to say that their physical exams should be made public.

It’s just an incredibly sad thing and I don’t blame Senator Feinstein. I blame the people around her that are enabling her and covering for her.

RGB was selfish and had been physically declining for twenty years. She should have left before 2016 when she was assured of her preferred replacement, but selfishly and arrogantly stiffed Obama and screwed all her ideological supporters.

You should be for term limits and the abolition of tenure. No one should get a job for life.

Feinstein deserves every bit of blame going her way. Her incompetence and infirmity have already cost her party in hearings and court confirmations, but like the rest of her geriatric compatriots, she will be allowed to continue because of ideology and politics.

Edited December 12, 2020 by MagicSoccerSpray

[JimmyJames 12,271]

On 12/11/2020 at 6:59 AM, Enchubben said:

My firm makes you retire at 60. Yet it’s completely acceptable to have people running our country as president and congress that are 6 months away from not remembering their phone number. Long overdue. 

If your firm has 15 employees, you are clearly violating the law and are subject to a slam dunk age discrimination case.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

On 12/11/2020 at 9:42 AM, Enchubben said:

I should clarify - as partner they make you retire, and no it's not.  Written into partnership agreement.

You can return to being an employee after 60, but it never happens. 

I would really, really, like to know the name of your company. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

On 12/11/2020 at 7:42 AM, TwiceHorn said:

While a mandatory retirement age is generally unlawful under ADEA, there is an exception for high level executive types, which generally applies to C-suite types and, more importantly, to partner-level employees in law, accounting, and other service firms.

The idea being that those types are not hurting for employment income (and if they are who gives a shit), and sort of unstated, they need to be able to free-up that revenue share for others.

Have to be 65 and other factors such as payment of annual retirement. It rarely applies and is in general not a good idea.

[Neonmoon 38,129]

If they can require someone to be 35 to be President, they can require someone be under 75 to be in Congress 

[Enchubben 5,510]

53 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

I would really, really, like to know the name of your company. 

Not gonna happen and wayyyy more than 15 lol.  What I have relayed is extremely common place and it tells me you don’t know what you’re talking about or you just missed my follow up post.

48 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

If they can require someone to be 35 to be President, they can require someone be under 75 to be in Congress 

This.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

15 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Not gonna happen and wayyyy more than 15 lol.  What I have relayed is extremely common place and it tells me you don’t know what you’re talking about or you just missed my follow up post.

This.

I read your follow up post and I know what I’m talking about. Your firm is violating the law and if anyone ever bothers to look at it and pursue it you will get sued and you will lose. If it’s common in your industry, all the better for the lawyers.

[woohorn 1,131]

I read your follow up post and I know what I’m talking about. Your firm is violating the law and if anyone ever bothers to look at it and pursue it you will get sued and you will lose. If it’s common in your industry, all the better for the lawyers.

Lots of firms do it for Partners/Shareholders. Didn't think ADEA applied to them.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

1 minute ago, woohorn said:

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

I read your follow up post and I know what I’m talking about. Your firm is violating the law and if anyone ever bothers to look at it and pursue it you will get sued and you will lose. If it’s common in your industry, all the better for the lawyers.

Lots of firms do it for Partners/Shareholders. Didn't think ADEA applied to them.

It doesn’t apply to lots of firms if they are small enough, or if the partners are essentially owners that meet a certain test showing complete control. Basically the larger the firm, the higher the likelihood a mandatory retirement age violates the law, especially if its younger than 65.

[RPM 26,322]

On 12/11/2020 at 11:38 PM, MagicSoccerSpray said:

You should be for term limits and the abolition of tenure. No one should get a job for life.

I agree we need term limits, but in Congress it would just make them grift harder, faster.

6 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

If they can require someone to be 35 to be President, they can require someone be under 75 to be in Congress 

Seems reasonable.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

The age limit provision really needs to happen.

The life expectancy for white men when the constitution was written was 38 years old, FFS.

They would be astounded that we’ve got folks in their 70s and 80s ambling around Capitol Hill running our country.

They didn’t leave out an upper age limit because they thought that would be a bad idea - they didn’t include it because they couldn’t conceive of such a thing.

“Think we need a blurb in there that don’t want 75 year olds running for the senate, Tom?”

“Nah, Alexander. No need for a clause that would cover only 5 or 6 people.”

[Keef 771]

I LOL at the folks who are like "why didn't RBG just retire at the end of Obama's tenure?"  Did you miss the whole Merrick Garland thing?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,976]

27 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

The age limit provision really needs to happen.

The life expectancy for white men when the constitution was written was 38 years old, FFS.

They would be astounded that we’ve got folks in their 70s and 80s ambling around Capitol Hill running our country.

They didn’t leave out an upper age limit because they thought that would be a bad idea - they didn’t include it because they couldn’t conceive of such a thing.

“Think we need a blurb in there that don’t want 75 year olds running for the senate, Tom?”

“Nah, Alexander. No need for a clause that would cover only 5 or 6 people.”

Life expectancy statistics were heavily influenced by infant and child mortality. Add in lack of understanding about germ theory, and a simple cut could lead to a deadly infection even for a healthy young man in his 20's. But that doesn't mean living into one's 70's was particularly uncommon. We don't have a lot of good data before the mid nineteenth century, but by 1850 a person in the UK who survived to the age of 50 was expected to make it to 70 on average. One who survived to age 30 was expected to make it to nearly 65 on average.

Now, that's not to say that we should be happy to have a bunch of senile old people running our country, but our founding fathers likely all had relatives who had reached that age and suffered from dementia. It wasn't something they were at all unaware of, they just thought that people would do the sensible thing and step down.

[Chewbacca 7,780]

I LOL at the folks who are like "why didn't RBG just retire at the end of Obama's tenure?"  Did you miss the whole Merrick Garland thing?

Obama tried to get her to step down when he controlled Congress. She declined.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

2 hours ago, Keef said:

I LOL at the folks who are like "why didn't RBG just retire at the end of Obama's tenure?"  Did you miss the whole Merrick Garland thing?

 

46 minutes ago, Chewbacca said:

2 hours ago, Keef said:

I LOL at the folks who are like "why didn't RBG just retire at the end of Obama's tenure?"  Did you miss the whole Merrick Garland thing?

Obama tried to get her to step down when he controlled Congress. She declined.

It's impossible to know whether McConnell would have allowed a vote in 2013 or 14 especially in replacing RGB. I think he would have leaned towards eventually allowing a vote. Even he would have struggled to hold off for years especially if there was a relatively moderate candidate. Don't get me wrong, he would have used this power to extract something from Obama but ultimately McConnell would have allowed it.  The main problem for Garland was that he was nominated to replace Scalia. 

And finally, RGB could have announced her resignation in 2014 or 15, but only effective when her replacement was confirmed. Resigning doesn't mean walking out the door that day.  A retired Justice doesn't have to retire to fishing or playing shuffleboard. They can still be a visiting federal judge. I believe that Souter still participates in the Appeal Courts. 

Edited December 14, 2020 by Nice Guy Eddie

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,402]

2 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

The life expectancy for white men when the constitution was written was 38 years old, FFS.

They would be astounded that we’ve got folks in their 70s and 80s ambling around Capitol Hill running our country.

”

Just a point of clarification: average life expectancy was low then because so many people died in childhood.  Benjamin Franklin was 81 at the Constitutional Convention.   Somewhere I read that, in 1800, if a chlld in America had reached the age of 10,  average life expectancy was 69 years.   The average age of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention was 42 but that was because so many of them were in their 20s and had served in the Revolutionary War. 
 

[wildcat09 29,355]

8 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

 

It's impossible to know whether McConnell would have allowed a vote in 2013 or 14 especially in replacing RGB. I think he would have leaned towards eventually allowing a vote. Even he would have struggled to hold off for years especially if there was a relatively moderate candidate. Don't get me wrong, he would have used this power to extract something from Obama but ultimately McConnell would have allowed it.  The main problem for Garland was that he was nominated to replace Scalia. 

And finally, RGB could have announced her resignation in 2014 or 15, but only effective when her replacement was confirmed. Resigning doesn't mean walking out the door that day. 

McConnell didn't have a say in 2013 or 2014.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

12 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

McConnell didn't have a say in 2013 or 2014.

I stand corrected. But I stand on the idea that McConnell would have most likely allowed a vote in 2015 if she had resigned.

[wildcat09 29,355]

9 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I stand corrected. But I stand on the idea that McConnell would have most likely allowed a vote in 2015 if she had resigned.

It's not like Scalia died late in 2016. He died in February. I don't think there is any real reason to think the calculus in his mind was any different then than it would have been a year earlier. If anything, a year earlier I think he would have been even more likely to do the political math and determine that holding the seat open until the election was the best thing for him to do. In 2015, the GOP had a big field with a number of (what they thought were) good candidates who they thought could beat Hillary easily. By February 2016, it was pretty clear that Trump would be the nominee and, at that time, most in the GOP thought he had no chance of winning. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's not like Scalia died late in 2016. He died in February. I don't think there is any real reason to think the calculus in his mind was any different then than it would have been a year earlier. If anything, a year earlier I think he would have been even more likely to do the political math and determine that holding the seat open until the election was the best thing for him to do. In 2015, the GOP had a big field with a number of (what they thought were) good candidates who they thought could beat Hillary easily. By February 2016, it was pretty clear that Trump would be the nominee and, at that time, most in the GOP thought he had no chance of winning. 

Yes, and a replacement for RGB would not be filling an empty seat. That's a big difference than with replacing Scalia.

[BradInATX 9,208]

No pass from me for an Octogenarian refusing to step aside to let the next generations of folks who are more in touch with modern society step in. It's always a shitty move even if done by someone with her legacy. Bonus demerits for gifting a SC nomination to McConnell.

It doesn't invalidate her legacy but it was a pretty standard old person thinking they know more what's best for young people than young people do. It's lame as hell 100% of the time no matter who is doing it. There comes a time to step aside and let society shape it's own way for itself and its children. If your children have grown ass children, you are beyond that point. GTFO the way.

I'm super important and smart and if I step aside to let these rock and roll listening kids run things it'll all fall apart.

[Nivek 16,943]

55 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

The life expectancy for white men when the constitution was written was 38 years old, FFS.

I hate this shit.  The life expectancy number is based on the inclusion of infant mortality and other factors which askews those numbers.  Augustus lived to be 75.  Cicero's wife was over 100.  Our life span really hasn't changed much with modern medicine, but it has changed the life expectancy rates which included infant mortality, natural causes, and man-made causes (wars, which has also been on the decline worldwide).  Kids who lived in the Victorian age tended to live to their early-mid 70s if they survived childhood. 

Having a government representation based on age is dangerous.  We need a mix of talented experienced people, youth, and mid-career types.  A room full of olds, is just as bad as a room full of young, but in different ways.  Neither represents the population, its demographics, and its experiences.   But our current biggest problem is not for a lack of diversity and age, but a lack of cooperation and an unwillingness by the republicans to put the country and the population before their own grift.   They are happy as shit to spend $2.4 trillion on wars and reticent to spend money to help people obtain sustenance.    But that takes us into a different direction and one that has been already well fleshed out on this board in other threads.

 

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31,489]

13 minutes ago, Nivek said:

I hate this shit.  The life expectancy number is based on the inclusion of infant mortality and other factors which askews those numbers.  Augustus lived to be 75.  Cicero's wife was over 100.  Our life span really hasn't changed much with modern medicine, but it has changed the life expectancy rates which included infant mortality, natural causes, and man-made causes (wars, which has also been on the decline worldwide).  Kids who lived in the Victorian age tended to live to their early-mid 70s if they survived childhood. 

Having a government representation based on age is dangerous.  We need a mix of talented experienced people, youth, and mid-career types.  A room full of olds, is just as bad as a room full of young, but in different ways.  Neither represents the population, its demographics, and its experiences.   But our current biggest problem is not for a lack of diversity and age, but a lack of cooperation and an unwillingness by the republicans to put the country and the population before their own grift.   They are happy as shit to spend $2.4 trillion on wars and reticent to spend money to help people obtain sustenance.    But that takes us into a different direction and one that has been already well fleshed out on this board in other threads.

 

 

 

I don't think they calculated life expectancy back then anyway.  And most of the founding fathers lived to pretty ripe ages, as did most of their social and political peers, probably as a result of being relatively wealthy and having avoided infant mortality.

There were plenty of doddering old fools at the Constitutional Convention.  

But, while the really aged in office are problematic, I think bright-line rules about age are equally so.  As big or a bigger problem is how long the doddering old fools have been in office, not so much that they're old.  And that is a problem with their constituency.

[Nivek 16,943]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think they calculated life expectancy back then anyway.  And most of the founding fathers lived to pretty ripe ages, as did most of their social and political peers, probably as a result of being relatively wealthy and having avoided infant mortality.

There were plenty of doddering old fools at the Constitutional Convention.  

But, while the really aged in office are problematic, I think bright-line rules about age are equally so.  As big or a bigger problem is how long the doddering old fools have been in office, not so much that they're old.  And that is a problem with their constituency.

Yeah, I think we are mostly in agreement here.  Life expectancy is a product of wars/disease/medicine while our life span really hasn't changed much despite the significant advancements in medicine and this is often confused and is a pet peeve of mine (along with the Alpha concept).   

I actually appreciate us having venerable elder statesman, and I prefer that we have professional politicians as opposed to amatures.   We have that pretty boy in a wheelchair who is a moron and we have Katie Porter.   We don't need Cruz type lifers.  We do need Warrens as lifers.  This is not about their ideology as much as their competency, though I have never been shy about my political leanings.  Fewer lawyers would be nice.  

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

All complete pie in the sky talk. Congress writes the laws, and they're not going to do a thing that jeopardizes their power or causes them any issue that affects them adversely.  

Fewer lawyers... you might at as well ask for a pay cut or them using the same medical coverage, or give up their full salary pensions. None of that will happen, and in fact it's only going the opposite direction.  

They feel nothing that average citizens feel in a day to day life. so I for one want a majority amateur elected body, with less career people. Not even sure how you make that happen, and it won't.  Having a legislative body that is allegedly representing the people has become a farce. They do not represent the people, or their wishes, but often represent donors who have the dollars to gain access.

Wanna make the most impact, create actual campaign finance laws that take the money out of those positions. You'll see people who want to serve as a duty rather than as a path to riches.  More pie in the sky, stars in my eye, and rainbows out my ass talk.

The greatest unforeseen flaw in the Constitution ?  Giving the power to the people who control the purse strings no hard boundaries, on what they could vote for themselves.

 

[wildcat09 29,355]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

All complete pie in the sky talk. Congress writes the laws, and they're not going to do a thing that jeopardizes their power or causes them any issue that affects them adversely.  

Fewer lawyers... you might at as well ask for a pay cut or them using the same medical coverage, or give up their full salary pensions. None of that will happen, and in fact it's only going the opposite direction.  

They feel nothing that average citizens feel in a day to day life. so I for one want a majority amateur elected body, with less career people. Not even sure how you make that happen, and it won't.  Having a legislative body that is allegedly representing the people has become a farce. They do not represent the people, or their wishes, but often represent donors who have the dollars to gain access.

Wanna make the most impact, create actual campaign finance laws that take the money out of those positions. You'll see people who want to serve as a duty rather than as a path to riches.  More pie in the sky, stars in my eye, and rainbows out my ass talk.

The greatest unforeseen flaw in the Constitution ?  Giving the power to the people who control the purse strings no hard boundaries, on what they could vote for themselves.

 

*wants campaign finance laws*

*votes for Republicans*

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

*wants campaign finance laws*

*votes for Republicans*

Yeah umm, no I vote for dems, and republicans in state elections often.  National level it's more republican, but have voted democrat more than a few times for US Senators.  

I know that's a difficult if not outright impossible problem for you, not voting party line hack.  

[High Plains Drifter 11,050]

5 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

The age limit provision really needs to happen.

The life expectancy for white men when the constitution was written was 38 years old, FFS.

They would be astounded that we’ve got folks in their 70s and 80s ambling around Capitol Hill running our country.

They didn’t leave out an upper age limit because they thought that would be a bad idea - they didn’t include it because they couldn’t conceive of such a thing.

“Think we need a blurb in there that don’t want 75 year olds running for the senate, Tom?”

“Nah, Alexander. No need for a clause that would cover only 5 or 6 people.”

 

While the average life span has increased quite a bit, the longest life span is pretty the same as it ever was. There were 80 and 90 year olds around back then, just not as many of them.

I think they just didn't conceive of the possibility that anyone who wasn't physically and mentally fit would ever be or remain in a position of political power. Just like they never conceived of political parties.

 

[High Plains Drifter 11,050]

Just now, High Plains Drifter said:

 

While the average life span has increased quite a bit, the longest life span is pretty the same as it ever was. There were 80 and 90 year olds around back then, just not as many of them.

I think they just didn't conceive of the possibility that anyone who wasn't physically and mentally fit would ever be or remain in a position of political power. Just like they never conceived of political parties.

 

 

Edit: Also, the life expectantcy was so low because so many people died before the age of one. Once you made it to two or so, your life expectancy went way up past 38.

[High Plains Drifter 11,050]

25 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

All complete pie in the sky talk. Congress writes the laws, and they're not going to do a thing that jeopardizes their power or causes them any issue that affects them adversely.  

Fewer lawyers... you might at as well ask for a pay cut or them using the same medical coverage, or give up their full salary pensions. None of that will happen, and in fact it's only going the opposite direction.  

They feel nothing that average citizens feel in a day to day life. so I for one want a majority amateur elected body, with less career people. Not even sure how you make that happen, and it won't.  Having a legislative body that is allegedly representing the people has become a farce. They do not represent the people, or their wishes, but often represent donors who have the dollars to gain access.

Wanna make the most impact, create actual campaign finance laws that take the money out of those positions. You'll see people who want to serve as a duty rather than as a path to riches.  More pie in the sky, stars in my eye, and rainbows out my ass talk.

The greatest unforeseen flaw in the Constitution ?  Giving the power to the people who control the purse strings no hard boundaries, on what they could vote for themselves.

 

 

They do have boundaries. They are called elections.

 

[High Plains Drifter 11,050]

2 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Edit: Also, the life expectantcy was so low because so many people died before the age of one. Once you made it to two or so, your life expectancy went way up past 38.

 

Edit again: what Nivek said. I really need to read the entire thread before posting.

 

[wildcat09 29,355]

16 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Yeah umm, no I vote for dems, and republicans in state elections often.  National level it's more republican, but have voted democrat more than a few times for US Senators.  

I know that's a difficult if not outright impossible problem for you, not voting party line hack.  

Why the hell would I vote for Republicans? They don't share any of my values or support policies I support.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

1 minute ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

They do have boundaries. They are called elections.

 

That's cute....  I love your naivete'. Voting out one member from time to time does nothing to stem the tide of a body that controls what and when it votes on anything, and has no real check on its powers that are being upheld. It always looks out for itself, and then party before it does what's best for its constituencies.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

17 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Why the hell would I vote for Republicans? They don't share any of my values or support policies I support.

Well I guess when you have no values it's easy to just vote for one party. That way all you have to do is know what a D looks like in the voting booth.  

No critical thinking for you sport... keep that head planted firmly up your ass, it's probably your best look.

[wildcat09 29,355]

32 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Well I guess when you have no values it's easy to just vote for one party. That way all you have to do is know what a D looks like in the voting booth.  

No critical thinking for you sport... keep that head planted firmly up your ass, it's probably your best look.

Oh you poor thing, you’re trying so hard.

[Onboard 2.0 9,083]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Oh you poor thing, you’re trying so hard.

Not for you. You're so predictable in your BS.  One day when you grow up you may start to think beyond emotional whims, till then just keep being you. It's always a fun part of the Surly.

[smuggs 9,353]

21 hours ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Somewhere I read that, in 1800, if a chlld in America had reached the age of 10,  average life expectancy was 69 years.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,515]

On a related note, here is how long you have to live: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

 

 

[Nivek 16,943]

20 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

All complete pie in the sky talk. Congress writes the laws, and they're not going to do a thing that jeopardizes their power or causes them any issue that affects them adversely.  

Fewer lawyers... you might at as well ask for a pay cut or them using the same medical coverage, or give up their full salary pensions. None of that will happen, and in fact it's only going the opposite direction.  

They feel nothing that average citizens feel in a day to day life. so I for one want a majority amateur elected body, with less career people. Not even sure how you make that happen, and it won't.  Having a legislative body that is allegedly representing the people has become a farce. They do not represent the people, or their wishes, but often represent donors who have the dollars to gain access.

Wanna make the most impact, create actual campaign finance laws that take the money out of those positions. You'll see people who want to serve as a duty rather than as a path to riches.  More pie in the sky, stars in my eye, and rainbows out my ass talk.

The greatest unforeseen flaw in the Constitution ?  Giving the power to the people who control the purse strings no hard boundaries, on what they could vote for themselves.

 

Stop electing lawyers.  I sure as shit didn't vote for Ted or John (both lawyers) and their opposition were not lawyers.   It wasn't the D supporters that made sure both Senators from Texas were spineless lawyers.  I think we need more physicians and scientists serving.   IIRC our Congress is made up of lawyers by over 50%.  That seems a bit disproportional to me, though it seems I cannot throw a rock in Houston without hitting 2 lawyers.  

There are people who are trying to enact campaign finance reforms.  They are within the Democratic Party and include Sanders/AOC.  Who are their partners within the Republican Party?  Which party set up Citizen's United which only further exacerbated the problem?   Don't complain about a problem that you supported with your vote.  

 

[TwiceHorn 31,489]

8 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Stop electing lawyers.  I sure as shit didn't vote for Ted or John (both lawyers) and their opposition were not lawyers.   It wasn't the D supporters that made sure both Senators from Texas were spineless lawyers.  I think we need more physicians and scientists serving.   IIRC our Congress is made up of lawyers by over 50%.  That seems a bit disproportional to me, though it seems I cannot throw a rock in Houston without hitting 2 lawyers.  

There are people who are trying to enact campaign finance reforms.  They are within the Democratic Party and include Sanders/AOC.  Who are their partners within the Republican Party?  Which party set up Citizen's United which only further exacerbated the problem?   Don't complain about a problem that you supported with your vote.  

 

Not to defend lawyers, but they are simply more likely to run for public office than science-types.  And a lot of politicians are "manufactured" lawyers in that they get law degrees after commencing their political careers, or solely for the purpose of "credentials" for a political career.

Science-types tend to prefer the precision and efficiency of their fields over the vague, imprecise, and "corrupted" (meaning taking into account too many factors other than the goal and direct process of legislation) field of lawmaking and politics.

[BradInATX 9,208]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not to defend lawyers, but they are simply more likely to run for public office than science-types.  And a lot of politicians are "manufactured" lawyers in that they get law degrees after commencing their political careers, or solely for the purpose of "credentials" for a political career.

Science-types tend to prefer the precision and efficiency of their fields over the vague, imprecise, and "corrupted" (meaning taking into account too many factors other than the goal and direct process of legislation) field of lawmaking and politics.

 

Yep. Much like the police, the problem with politics is the types of people it attracts.

Our country's most effective leaders are running companies and making a shit ton of money. Our country's smartest people are doctors and scientists and technology folks. What's left for politics is the next tier of people, who are largely average and at times below-average.

[Pato del Muerto 52,507]

17 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

 

Yep. Much like the police, the problem with politics is the types of people it attracts.

Our country's most effective leaders are running companies and making a shit ton of money. Our country's smartest people are doctors and scientists and technology folks. What's left for politics is the next tier of people, who are largely average and at times below-average.

I’ve maintained for most of my adult life that wanting an elected position that requires statewide support or multi state support in the case of president is essentially a symptom of narcissism.  At that level, it’s less about helping people and more about being seen and heard, and having a title of importance. 
I think maybe having a title of importance also leads narcissists to get their JD, as it’s the “easiest” path to a title rather then MD or PhD. 
I don’t know much about senator feinstein, but her unwillingness to say that’s enough and give up power points towards that, to me.  Many others just like her in the senate and even the house (though many house members have higher ambitions and only stay until they can win the next bigger seat).

but I’m going at it as someone who is introverted and the opposite of wanting or needing crowds and power, so what do I know. 
 

Edited December 15, 2020 by Pato del Muerto

[wildcat09 29,355]

Not to defend lawyers (because nobody should under any circumstances do that), but the doctors that are in Congress mostly suck ass too. 

I generally agree that fewer lawyers in Congress would be good (so long as the non-lawyers had good lawyers on their staff that could advise them on how not to royally fuck up drafting legislation), but the bigger problem is that the American electorate doesn't value the right things in its elected officials. The problem with Gym Jordan/Louis Gohmert/Matt Gaetz/etc. being in Congress is that enough people in their districts saw them and said "yeah, that's what I want in an elected official!" It's why Ted Cruz has turned into a weird little twitter troll. They've turned politics into professional wrestling and a ton of Americans absolutely love it.

[Dnaguy 11,997]

16 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Not to defend lawyers (because nobody should under any circumstances do that), but the doctors that are in Congress mostly suck ass too. 

I generally agree that fewer lawyers in Congress would be good (so long as the non-lawyers had good lawyers on their staff that could advise them on how not to royally fuck up drafting legislation), but the bigger problem is that the American electorate doesn't value the right things in its elected officials. The problem with Gym Jordan/Louis Gohmert/Matt Gaetz/etc. being in Congress is that enough people in their districts saw them and said "yeah, that's what I want in an elected official!" It's why Ted Cruz has turned into a weird little twitter troll. They've turned politics into professional wrestling and a ton of Americans absolutely love it.

IF you were a good doctor, you wouldn’t be in congress. That’s why they all suck. They posses all the bad qualities of doctors and none of the actual good doctoring.

So you take someone with a god complex and add onto it the narcissism that it takes to run for office. No bueno.

Lawyers are somewhat defensible as lawmakers... it is kind of an extension of the profession is some sense.

Agree with everything else.

[Nivek 16,943]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Not to defend lawyers, but they are simply more likely to run for public office than science-types.  And a lot of politicians are "manufactured" lawyers in that they get law degrees after commencing their political careers, or solely for the purpose of "credentials" for a political career.

Science-types tend to prefer the precision and efficiency of their fields over the vague, imprecise, and "corrupted" (meaning taking into account too many factors other than the goal and direct process of legislation) field of lawmaking and politics.

Very well stated and appreciated.  

[TwiceHorn 31,489]

16 minutes ago, Dnaguy said:

IF you were a good doctor, you wouldn’t be in congress. That’s why they all suck. They posses all the bad qualities of doctors and none of the actual good doctoring.

So you take someone with a god complex and add onto it the narcissism that it takes to run for office. No bueno.

Lawyers are somewhat defensible as lawmakers... it is kind of an extension of the profession is some sense.

Agree with everything else.

Well, a lot of lawyers could easily say the same thing, if you mean they are making too much money as lawdogs/doctors to flip over to the public sector.  And while the fields are related, the talents don't necessary overlap, although a fair number of successful attorneys are little more than bullshit artists, just like pols.

But, as an addendum to my earlier, it's not practicing lawyers that feel the urge to go into politics so much as politicians and "pre-politicians" that get law degrees or briefly practice law as a backdrop to the ultimate goal.

Some try judgeships, which is a really nonlinear path into politics, especially for appointed judges.  Seems the vast majority of judges don't go any further in politics.  And that's kind of strange, because judging is usually a pay cut, although at the state level it's usually a lot less work.  But a fair number of judges do it out of a service motivation, and find they rather like it, and sometimes the post-judicial career can be lucrative.