Sign up and stay connected to your favorite communities.
Questionable. He is next up in 2020, at which point he will be 78 year old. It is probably going to be very dependent on the political landscape at the time.
That said I'm not sure Mitch even understands right and wrong anymore, everything is just a political game. I think he is betting that since Trump has been talked down before, that he can continue to be talked down, while at the same time this shields Senate Republicans from having to take an official position on a sensitive topic. In a lot of ways it is similar to what he did in blocking Obama's Scotus vote. I really think he is playing with fire here though.
Every time I see someone point out the age of these guys it's just like why the fuck don't we have mandatory retirement for these positions.
edit: If we had age limits for government, I would say 75 for Congress and 60 for president.
Because they can be voted out every 2 or 6 years. The people of this nation have the option to force them into retirement frequently.
People blame a lot of things on rules, parties, etc that truly fall on voters’ shoulders at the end of the day.
It's hard for voters to correct issues when the Repubs have gerrymandered the fuck out of almost every district in the states that matter.
They've gamed the system for decades to take power away from voters.
We can and will fix this it's just far harder than it should be and this is why it's taking so long.
Why tolerate a system that's so reliant on informed, engaged voters to work correctly when voters are so consistently unreliable? History tells us you can only make progress by making a better system, not by hoping people will one day become better than they have been in the past.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
-Winston Churchill quoting an unknown speaker
I don't agree with this. Humans are objectively manipulatable by propaganda and advertising. With enough money you can fool the majority to vote against their own interests. There is no real way for the masses to overcome this.
I don’t mean to say everything is on the voters, but as it stands there are a lot of things that would be differently simply by having higher civic participation by the people. If everything the public has access to is falsified, then, yeah, you’re in trouble. If more people got their information from places other than political ads on the local news, we would be better off.
What if it was the news and not the ads that was the propaganda? That's what we have now. Stations have gone to court to defend their right to lie to the people.
Has nothing to do with mandatory retirement due to age. Why you are conflating "elections" with "retirement" is a mystery to me but undoubtedly it made sense in your head
It does make sense. We in theory shouldn't need age limits because the process already allows voters to retire Congresspeople whenever they get "too old".
The problem is just that people keep voting for them.
You're conflating two unrelated issues.
How are they not related? The whole point of the Democratic process is that people elect someone to represent them. What the user responding to you is saying is that if someone is considered too old it is the responsibility of the voter (Not a law) to replace them with someone who isn't.
Then why is there a lower limit on age? It should be the responsibility of the voters, right?
Hmm, this is actually a compelling point.
Maybe it was to reduce the effect of political dynasties by disallowing a senator's kid from running for office as soon as he hit adulthood?
Surely /r/askhistorians could tell us.
Will the other problem is that they aren't always getting primaried. And they're entrenched in the political culture of the state, which also gives them advantages.
Ageism and respect for experience. That said, I'm not so much for a mandatory age retirement, rather I think that all politicians should have to go through a mental screening for health related mental problems every time they go up for re-election. Technically Trump's age doesn't bother me. The fact that I think he has the early stages on senility and/or delusions because of his age is what concerns me. However such things aren't necessarily subject to age, so why not test everyone?
The best senator in Congress is 76 so I'm really not for that.
Questionable. He is next up in 2020, at which point he will be 78 year old.
That's young for a turtle
I thought it was tortoises that lived for ever and a day? And McConnell spends way to much time swimming in the swamp to be one of those ;)
I'll never forget how he publicly bragged that his main priority was to make Obama a one term president, consequences be damned. He's been nothing but an obstructionist the past decade. These people really don't give a shit about what's best for the country, it's all petty horse race politics and scoring points with your base.
Makes me sick, except for the few who actually walk the walk and genuinely seem to care about this country and its average citizens.
/r/Politics is for news and discussion about U.S. politics.
Welcome to r/politics! Please read the wiki before participating.
Our Full Rules
AMA with Mike Warren
AMA with Connor McCoy
AMA with Aplus
AMA with Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog
Here are some external resources that might be useful.