politics

It's as if they have a union, because as much as we employ them, they can only be fired under certain conditions which they vote on.

Well, we cannot even stop them from insider training. Then there is the problem of all the legalized bribery....I would think age limits faces much more of an uphill battle, even without the moral quandary it poses.

The idea is that we choose every election.

They are our fucking employees.

Only in the same way your landlord or your bank is your employee. The positions have been monopolized by a handful of cartel brokers and the real job of administering is in the hands of corporate lackeys puffed up through billions of dollars in sales and marketing. Liberal democracy has been defanged by market forces.

We should have made a provision for National referendum For things like this.

There's no such thing as a "national referendum", legally speaking. We don't vote on legislation, just on bureaucrats. And the bureaucrats we get to vote on are selected first by the donors, then by the party, and only finally by the general electorate.

Nobody we elect has any incentive to cap the age or number of terms they hold office. Why would they vote against their collective best interests?

It would still be age discrimination. The way to go is term limits.

We can do an article V convention to amend the constitution with these limits in order to circumvent DC politics entirely. But they will tell you that it’s an incredibly dangerous thing to do, and could cost us democracy itself!…I say we go for it anyway.

If that means the Democratic Party starts to transform by bringing in younger, more left people while the Republicans stagnate, this could be good.

As long as they keep putting in replacements that's are younger, this is a good strategy. The problem would be if they lose their seats, but if it puts the GOP further out of touch with voters and pushes Democrats closer, I'm all for it.

It’s progress.

now the Democratic pols are going to step down to “set a good example”

Republicans used to do this as a party function. The idea of seats, particularly at the lower tiers of government, being term-limited and up-or-out helped create new opportunities for younger aspiring politicians to participate in the party and aspire towards higher office.

If your only way into the next rung of office is through a miserable primary against an entrenched incumbent or patiently waiting for a 70-year-old politician to die of old age, you've got very little reason to try and climb the ladder. But if you know each seat opens up every six to twelve years, and the line of aspiring politicians is forever moving forward, then there's a reason to be a mid-level party official competing with other mid-level party officials looking for the next opening in the rooster.

Same thing happens in business with C-level executives. You have a bunch of hungry VPs all gunning for the next President/CEO job. Then you have your CEOs/Presidents retire onto the corporate boards every few years to make room for the next crop of talent. People want to join your company at the junior level because they see a path to seniority, rather than a dead-end role doing middle management bullshit for the rest of your life.

Yeah, I don't understand why Democrats always think they must unilaterally disarm. It's nauseating, honestly. How well did that work out for Al Franken, for example? We still have the orange pedo sitting in the WH here in a few weeks...

I'm still not entirely convinced that she's not a lich, tbh

Thankfully, her replacement is 38.