News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Keeping people alive longer doesn't necessarily mean they stay capable of doing their jobs longer. It should be a fixed age that's only changed if there's a breakthrough in preventing cognitive decline.
I would say they should be tested for mental acuity but they would just game the system somehow.
This is the same reason why eg. voting tests are a bad idea. A test is complicated enough to be meddled with.
35 is the minimum age to be President. 17 years from being an adult. So perhaps go 17 years below the median life expectancy, somewhere around 60?
Honestly that's the problems. The median life expectancy is in the upper 70s. Once you factor in having all the benefits of the USA health care system but none of the cost, it gets even higher. The average for 1787 was in the upper 30s.
The concept of a judge in their 90s was as outlandish as the concept of 35 million people living in California.
That's neatly symmetrical, but I don't see an objective reason to have it be that way. Symmetry for symmetry's sake isn't by default better than anything else.
Realistically I'd be fine with a final term beginning at 65 and ending at 69.
Honestly, 35 is too young to be president. 40 to 60 is probably the sweet spot. Make the upper limit 65 or 70 (but start negotiating at 60).
You think? I don't think 35 is too young. In fact, we don't know because we've never tried. JFK was youngest at 43 and considered one of the best. Mid thirties is peak mental and physical health with enough time to foster education and experience in my view.
For instance, if AOC became president after 35, she'd be fantastic independent of how slow the rest of the geriatrics around her hold her back.
Ultimately if you can go to war, you should be able to run for office. Age maxes make more sense for several reasons than age minimums.
JFK is not considered one of the best. He didn't even have a full term, so there's no way to know. People liked him because he was young and handsome and died that way.
He started the Vietnam War. His only real test was the Cuban Missile Crisis. He did adopt Keynesianism economic policies (over more classical policies) and proposed the bill that became the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those are all important, but he honestly wasn't in office long enough to do much.
And besides, like you said he was 43, not 35. AOC would not be able to do anything because she doesn't have the relationships yet. Good presidents don't come from the House of Representatives. They come from the Senate (JFK, Obama), Governors (FDR), or Vice Presidents (Harris).
https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall
Meanwhile JFK's lowest approval-rating was 56%, which was the highest floor since being recorded.
By all accounts, he is definitely considered one of the best. Perhaps not to you, but objectively, yes... One of the best, most popular Presidents in history.
43 shows the trend; similarly with Obama. When we trend toward lower ages, they tend to be extremely popular and historically revered Presidents. Besides, we ultimately cannot say it doesn't work until we actually try it.
Who said she doesn't have "relationships"? What Relationships, exactly? Biden had plenty of relationships and we had to give him the boot. Senate versus House, it makes no difference on the fundamental character of the individual. It's weird to think you suddenly utilized JFK as a positive example and then Harris who has yet to prove herself (while simultaneously saying we can't use JFK... because he didn't finish a term and yet you're using Harris who hasn't had a term to begin with...?)