Nancy Pelosi is a badass MF and I want her to be Speaker

[Longhorn_Fan68 33872]

As we know from our good Republican friends that prohibition never leads to good outcomes, so let's refocus on the problem. If the goal is to prevent or at least deter public office from being a lifetime gig, take the incentive away. If you take the big money out of politics and make it such that only the people who actually want to get into public office are doing so because they want to help and affect their constituents' lives. Ergo, let's stop making it so fucking profitable to be a politician. Nancy isn't clean on this issue, but she's far from the worst offender. I'd be willing to bet she would have set sail a long time ago, though, if it weren't so lucrative to be there in the first place. I'm not saying starve our politicians, but certainly get rid of Citizens United and make campaigns publicly funded and limited, like they do in Europe. We'd get a lot more our of our elected officials if they weren't spending 75% of their time trying to get the next check.

[Sawbonz 27565]

Who wants to take a guess at what happens to the political career of a democrat filing to run against Pelosi in that primary? Anyone? Anyone? 😖

Something-doo career 

doo-doo career

[We’reTexas 1473]

5 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Who wants to take a guess at what happens to the political career of a democrat filing to run against Pelosi in that primary? Anyone? Anyone? 😖

Something-doo career 

doo-doo career

Yeah San Francisco is a political machine anyways, whoever succeeds her will just hold the seat for decades like she has but may never develop her fundraising power. So I guess that’s going for her. 

[DixonHur 11328]

19 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

As we know from our good Republican friends that prohibition never leads to good outcomes, so let's refocus on the problem. If the goal is to prevent or at least deter public office from being a lifetime gig, take the incentive away. If you take the big money out of politics and make it such that only the people who actually want to get into public office are doing so because they want to help and affect their constituents' lives. Ergo, let's stop making it so fucking profitable to be a politician. Nancy isn't clean on this issue, but she's far from the worst offender. I'd be willing to bet she would have set sail a long time ago, though, if it weren't so lucrative to be there in the first place. I'm not saying starve our politicians, but certainly get rid of Citizens United and make campaigns publicly funded and limited, like they do in Europe. We'd get a lot more our of our elected officials if they weren't spending 75% of their time trying to get the next check.

What's the stat?  Like 5-7% of the US population are millionaires, yet over 50% of Congress critters are...so much for a representative government.  

[Neonmoon 38129]

6 hours ago, Js1 said:

Pesky constitution! Getting in the way of everyone’s tantrum 

That's a dumb argument. It's the same argument 2A people use. 

[Js1 85353]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

That's a dumb argument. It's the same argument 2A people use. 

How is it dumb? You sound pissy about it. The constitution spells out the requirements to serve in congress. There’s a minimum age and no maximum age.  It’s not a bunch of judges interpreting that based on their worldview. It’s pretty black and white there. Or it would have been challenged by now?

[Neonmoon 38129]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

How is it dumb? You sound pissy about it. The constitution spells out the requirements to serve in congress. There’s a minimum age and no maximum age.  It’s not a bunch of judges interpreting that based on their worldview. It’s pretty black and white there. Or it would have been challenged by now?

It's dumb because it lacks critical thinking skills. You either believe the constitution is infallible or you don't. It's the same argument 2A people use. It's the constitution, it can't be changed! That's not true at all. We have amendments. It can be amended. Now, of course I would agree that the possibility of that happening is none, but that doesn't change my argument that it can be changed and should be changed. 

So yes, currently, there are minimum age requirements and no maximum age requirements. I don't agree with that. 

Do you?

I don't believe that just because constituents want to elect a 100 year old vegetable, they should be allowed to. 

Do you?

If you do, that is why, I suggest why shouldn't those same constituents be allowed to elect a 5 year old? 

[DixonHur 11328]

20 minutes ago, Js1 said:

How is it dumb? You sound pissy about it. The constitution spells out the requirements to serve in congress. There’s a minimum age and no maximum age.  It’s not a bunch of judges interpreting that based on their worldview. It’s pretty black and white there. Or it would have been challenged by now?

One could argue that just because the constitution doesn't spell out a maximum age doesn't mean you couldn't impose one.  I mean it doesn't explicitly say there isn't a maximum age either.

[G650 14263]

I mean, I don't know why this has to be said, but yes I would absolutely prefer an 80 year old to a 5 year old. We've reached the dadaist stage of politics I guess.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33872]

[jimmyjazz 45963]

53 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Really?

Link

I don't have time this afternoon to dig into that link, but I would guess it has something to do with the ability to learn.  If that's the case, then it doesn't address the accumulated knowledge and experience that an 85-year-old will have all over a 15-year-old.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.  If I'm reading the chart correctly, it appears that "comprehension" (which should matter greatly) appears to be damn near symmetrical around that 50-year age, which likely addresses the ability to comprehend new information.  Still, I would expect experience would matter in terms of placing that information in historical context, and I damn sure want my politicians to be able to do that.  (Hey to SCOTUS.)

[Neonmoon 38129]

25 minutes ago, G650 said:

I mean, I don't know why this has to be said, but yes I would absolutely prefer an 80 year old to a 5 year old. We've reached the dadaist stage of politics I guess.

I would to, but that's not the point. 

[DixonHur 11328]

double post

Edited September 11, 2023 by DixonHur

[DixonHur 11328]

28 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't have time this afternoon to dig into that link, but I would guess it has something to do with the ability to learn.  If that's the case, then it doesn't address the accumulated knowledge and experience that an 85-year-old will have all over a 15-year-old.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.  If I'm reading the chart correctly, it appears that "comprehension" (which should matter greatly) appears to be damn near symmetrical around that 50-year age, which likely addresses the ability to comprehend new information.  Still, I would expect experience would matter in terms of placing that information in historical context, and I damn sure want my politicians to be able to do that.  (Hey to SCOTUS.)

Z equals the average of the data set.  Each point up or down is 1 standard deviation from the mean.

So in this example, at age 50 people are at their peak performance (middle of the bell curve) in most categories.  Specifically vocabulary (Semantic knowledge; verbal comprehension and expression), Information (General knowledge), Comprehension (understanding of common concepts), and arithmetic (Quantitative reasoning, concentration, mental manipulation).  

At age 80 people are almost a full standard deviation away from the mean, and 1.5 away from the peak at 50.  That's a huge change.

I don't think anyone is seriously contending we should have 15 year olds in congress, but I think a sweet spot of 30-60 would be nice.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

33 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I don't have time this afternoon to dig into that link, but I would guess it has something to do with the ability to learn.  If that's the case, then it doesn't address the accumulated knowledge and experience that an 85-year-old will have all over a 15-year-old.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.  If I'm reading the chart correctly, it appears that "comprehension" (which should matter greatly) appears to be damn near symmetrical around that 50-year age, which likely addresses the ability to comprehend new information.  Still, I would expect experience would matter in terms of placing that information in historical context, and I damn sure want my politicians to be able to do that.  (Hey to SCOTUS.)

All of that accumulated experience is awesome when 74 year old Steve King asks the Google CEO why certain notifications appear on his granddaughter's iPhone.

[Js1 85353]

40 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

One could argue that just because the constitution doesn't spell out a maximum age doesn't mean you couldn't impose one.  I mean it doesn't explicitly say there isn't a maximum age either.

I mean, you can.  But you probably need to pass an amendment.

Good luck with that in our current political climate.  Our SCOTUS majority also feels like what the Constitution said in 1789 is the word of God, so they could easily strike that down because "that wasn't the intent!" 

[jimmyjazz 45963]

7 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

I don't think anyone is seriously contending we should have 15 year olds in congress, but I think a sweet spot of 30-60 would be nice.

Well, someone suggested that there should be no lower age limit if there is no upper age limit, so I disagree.

I also think 30 is a little low.  I mean, I'm still a dumbass, but you should have seen me at 30.

[DixonHur 11328]

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

I mean, you can.  But you probably need to pass an amendment.

Good luck with that in our current political climate.  Our SCOTUS majority also feels like what the Constitution said in 1789 is the word of God, so they could easily strike that down because "that wasn't the intent!" 

Totally agree on the SCOTUS comment, but I don't think you'd need an amendment.  

I think either congress themselves could pass an age maximum law (just like they could with term limits), or at a minimum the states could set their own upper age limits, since anything not explicitly in the constitution falls to the states.

That said, if either of those happened, it might end up before SCOTUS, so all bets would off at that point.

[Js1 85353]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

Totally agree on the SCOTUS comment, but I don't think you'd need an amendment.  

I think either congress themselves could pass an age maximum law (just like they could with term limits), or at a minimum the states could set their own upper age limits, since anything not explicitly in the constitution falls to the states.

That said, if either of those happened, it might end up before SCOTUS, so all bets would off at that point.

It would 100% end up at SCOTUS.  As would term limits.  And all bets are off from there. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

3 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

As we know from our good Republican friends that prohibition never leads to good outcomes, so let's refocus on the problem. If the goal is to prevent or at least deter public office from being a lifetime gig, take the incentive away. If you take the big money out of politics and make it such that only the people who actually want to get into public office are doing so because they want to help and affect their constituents' lives. Ergo, let's stop making it so fucking profitable to be a politician. Nancy isn't clean on this issue, but she's far from the worst offender. I'd be willing to bet she would have set sail a long time ago, though, if it weren't so lucrative to be there in the first place. I'm not saying starve our politicians, but certainly get rid of Citizens United and make campaigns publicly funded and limited, like they do in Europe. We'd get a lot more our of our elected officials if they weren't spending 75% of their time trying to get the next check.

I think this is a good way to think about the situation.  Campaign finance reform and ending citizen's united are very much needed things.

Quote

If the goal is to prevent or at least deter public office from being a lifetime gig

This is my only quibble.  I'm good with reforming compensation and limiting stock trading, but I think our real goal should be to have a functioning government that meets the needs of the country.  In order to get to that point IMO, we need to shape up the electorate through education, critical thinking, and addressing misinformation so we stop electing clowns.  Also, career politicians are just as effective, if not more so, than rookies at building consensus, whipping votes, and passing legislation.  Nancy vs AOC is a prime example. Mitch vs Tuberville is another.

[Neonmoon 38129]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, someone suggested that there should be no lower age limit if there is no upper age limit, so I disagree.

I also think 30 is a little low.  I mean, I'm still a dumbass, but you should have seen me at 30.

I don’t seriously think a 15 year old should be allowed to serve in Congress. I think a 15 year old serving is just as absurd as a 85 year old serving. Hence there should be age limits. 

[jimmyjazz 45963]

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

I don’t seriously think a 15 year old should be allowed to serve in Congress. I think a 15 year old serving is just as absurd as a 85 year old serving. Hence there should be age limits. 

I think it depends on the 85-year-old.  I think no 15-year-old is close to qualified.

Of course, a good fraction of the current Congress isn't qualified, either, so maybe it doesn't matter.

[Js1 85353]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think it depends on the 85-year-old.  I think no 15-year-old is close to qualified.

Of course, a good fraction of the current Congress isn't qualified, either, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Their constituents have decided they are qualified. They just happened to be elected by idiots 

[MC Fresh Breath 4074]

Hard to let go of power once you've been juiced.

[yoladu 4094]

On 1/28/2023 at 4:53 PM, bolverk said:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/16/politics/depape-verdict-guilty/index.html

David DePape found guilty in Paul Pelosi hammer attack

Mr. DePape even took the stand in his own defense, so i am sure he confirmed all that above in the graphic. Oh, he didn't?

Well then.... i guess the apologies to the Pelosi Family are eminent.