It's Time For Mitch To Hang Up His Spurs

[Bn2f]

Oh, no!
So sad.
Chloe’s husband took a fall.
Lol! IYKYK

 

[Bn2f]

The Senator is well aware of his failing health and is already taking measure for the smooth transition of power into a new administration and paradigm shift. His day, my day, is over. The dinosaur is being replaced by the quick and agile mammal and the Republican Party is collecting quite a cadre of the young, quick and ambitious. I wonder what will become of them and how many of them will fall prey to power until the day comes when they are the Democratic Phoenix in Nero's ashes? Time will tell.

Oh wow! Such elegance. Your words just flow and dance off the page here with such grace. How long have you been a member? What took you so long in posting? Are you an artist? A writer? Well, sir, let me tell you that I’m impressed with the way you convey your opinions! The PB needs a person such as yourself to add some culture and class to this place.

Um.
One question: Ya voted trump, right?

Fuck off! Take your scuzzy ass and stand in line behind RG, babyboo, and all the other shitball racists, fuckups, traitors that occupy this space and thread. POS.

 

[Politruk]

The dinosaur is being replaced by the quick and agile mammal and the Republican Party is collecting quite a cadre of the young, quick and ambitious.

You won't find those in Trump's admin. They might be young, but they're not capable.

 

[BAstoicguy]

There should be a mandatory retirement age of 70 for all federal officials, including judges and members of Congress.

No there should not because you cannot predict future life expectancies and advances in medical technology. In politics, a thing done hastily with the best of intentions to solve a problem of immediacy is impossible to undo when its impracticality is discovered.

Why handicap a middle-aged seventy-year old with an edict from the grave? Considering the known maturation process of the human animal, which remains unceasing over such a short epochal time, age floors are a sagacious curb on the unwise impulses and indiscretions of youth, but age limits are clearly a fallacy.

In these things a person is the best judge and his best advisors are family, faith and constituency (community). Politics is Rasputin whispering sweet death advice into your ear describing the light at the end of the tunnel as a spotlight that highlights the end of career.

 

[Politruk]

No there should not because you cannot predict future life expectancies and advances in medical technology. In politics, a thing done hastily with the best of intentions to solve a problem of immediacy is impossible to undo when its impracticality is discovered.

It is not only a matter of personal ability and vigor and mental acuity. There should be a cutoff on how long a given generation's culture, world-view and way of thinking can shape public affairs in any way more significant than voting.

Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms really should not have been allowed to remain politically relevant as long as they did.

 

[BAstoicguy]

See, now you already understand the weakness of your argument for now your benchmarks grow more difficult to measure. A thousand legal beagle Clinton types will be out there parsing recursively the meaning of "generation" just as we discuss when life begins or how much wealth accumulation is equitable.

 

[ll74]

I have no issue with top age out for all three branches of government. If medical advances extend that possibility, it can be amended to increase the top age.

 

[BAstoicguy]

Then you come upon the same issue, who decides, who benefits and who gets to define the metrics. For immediate example, just look at the frenetic debate over whether or not our two Presidents are too old and from either spectrum end, roy to biv, the finger points to the other and from the middle they both look too old, to me, but I am not their constituency, their family, their doctor (remember that part about my body my choice [/decision]?) and them. It's easy to make that choice when you have no wisdom wrinkles in the game.

 

[ll74]

Then you come upon the same issue, who decides, who benefits and who gets to define the metrics. For immediate example, just look at the frenetic debate over whether or not our two Presidents are too old and from either spectrum end, roy to biv, the finger points to the other and from the middle they both look too old, to me, but I am not their constituency, their family, their doctor (remember that part about my body my choice [/decision]?) and them. It's easy to make that choice when you have no wisdom wrinkles in the game.

It would require an Amendment, so the people and states would decide. I don't think a law would do it.

I'm not sure our Federal government would have the gall to create a law and certainly not one that held up in court.

I don't think setting an age would be troublesome as it wouldn't be defined on whether they can or cannot do the job in some capacity....it would simply be a defined top range where it is already know to diminish mental capacity.

As I said, the age can be increased by another amendment is medical tech advances.

 

[BAstoicguy]

Age limits and term limits, to me, share a commonality in that it is up to those closest and as I depart I shall point out to others that Mitch McConnell is the Senator for Kentucky, not The People, so that decision is best left up to them because with great power comes great perks and when they lose him they are left with the minimalist Rand Paul, who I would never beat up as my neighbor.

 

[ll74]

Age limits and term limits, to me, share a commonality in that it is up to those closest and as I depart I shall point out to others that Mitch McConnell is the Senator for Kentucky, not The People,

What does this mean? He's a federal Senator which means he literally is a representative of the people. He certainly represents the people in Kentucky, but as they would be part of the Amendment, their voices would be heard.

so that decision is best left up to them because with great power comes great perks and when they lose him they are left with the minimalist Rand Paul, who I would never beat up as my neighbor.

I don't agree that someone's family is a proper decision maker for qualifications of representations for the people.

And what the fuck does "who I would never beat up as my neighbor" mean? Is that a decider for you at the ballot box? Seems an odd qualifier in your decisions - granted, that is entirely your reason to consider....but ...really?