• asclepias@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        69
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        Term limits empower lobbyists and career staffers and encourage legislators to give less of a shit about their constituents. I know “career politician” is often considered a dirty word, but having competent, knowledgeable elected officials is a good thing.

        • AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          65
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          They are already openly corrupt. Term limits would result in younger candidates in touch with this century. Lobbyists would also have to bribe new people. It might also break up the ridiculous 100% party voting.

          Not to mention help with our Supreme Court problems. Randomly giving appointments that last decades to whoever is president in at the time is insane.

          I really don’t think we have that many competent elected officials anyway.

          Yes, eliminating gerrymandering and citizens united would be more effective, but I wouldn’t kick term limits out of bed.

          • torknorggren@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            38
            ·
            1 year ago

            We have term limits in Florida. They have done nothing to solve any problems, and arguably have made the quality of our officials worse, while giving much more power to lobbyists.

          • asclepias@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            None of that has happened in the states that have term limits. If you think Republicans, no matter how long they have been in office, are going to start putting anyone other than Federalist Society drones on the courts, I’m not sure I can have a good faith argument with you.

          • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Term limits are as likely as ranked-choice voting, which would also solve a lot of problems but won’t be passed in a significant way in my lifetime

            • AlternatePersonMan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              1 year ago

              They actually just passed ranked choice voting in my city.

              It does seem crazy to have a system where 49% of people preferred the other guy, but he lost so those people now get zero representation.

          • HughJanus@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Term limits would result in younger candidates in touch with this century.

            Yes cuz that’s worked so well in places that already have them…

          • phillaholic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lobbyists would also have to bribe new people.

            No they’d hand pick them, run them on utter lies that they can’t be challenged, then throw them out when the public wises up. You seriously underestimate how far the power dynamic can swing.

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          1 year ago

          On the other hand, the current system of “representatives spend one full year campaigning and one full year fundraising for their party, so any legislation they sponsor in their two-year term is already written by lobbyists” isn’t working out so hot either.

          Throw in a law restricting campaigning more than three months before an election and a law limiting campaigns to only spending equally-dispersed public funds, and you might start to see some improvement. Oh, and reverse Citizen’s United and ban Super PACs while you’re at it. And can we all get a free unicorn too?

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          yeah, because the current batch of politicians are sooooo concerned with their constituents.

          On the other hand, lets ignore the fact that the vast majority of senators (and the president, and most presidential canidates,) are so “experienced” that the majority of their experience predates… the internet. Never mind social media or anything resembling the modern world we find our selves in.

            • Crismus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yep. Why is 65 not a forced retirement for politicians, when it is used in many less important industries?

        • candyman337@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There is definitely reasonable legislation that can have the best of both worlds here. That’s a poor argument against them

          • asclepias@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            We have about 25 years worth of experiments with it in various states, so it’s been well studied. Legislating is a skill that needs to be developed, just like anything else, and a bunch of term-limited newbies have no incentive to do anything except get ready for the next thing, which only enhances the possiblity of corruption.

      • IronCorgi@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t think term limits will solve anything near what people pitching term limits as a panacea think they will solve.

        • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          People that pitch that as a catch-all solution have no idea how democracy works, they’re just understandably angry at the old white men who have ruined all our lives.

          All term limits would do is make it middle aged white men ruining our lives.

          Like, these people don’t seem to understand where politicians come from or how they get to be where they are.

          Mitch McConnell is the Senator from Kentucky. Trump won that state both years by 60%. It hasn’t elected a Democratic Senator since 1992. In fact, that Democratic Senator retired, ya know, as old men should. Then a Republican took that seat.

          So who do you think takes Mitch McConnell’s seat if we boot him out for old age? Does it matter who? We know what letter will be next to their name.

          It’s the people. The problem is the people. And the structure of the Senate that gives them disproportionate power.

          Also, look at the young Republicans like Madison Cawthorn and tell me they’re any better than their seniors.

          • Narrrz@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            really, a lot of our problems boil down to “humans are just generally pretty shit”

          • phillaholic@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A better example is Joe Manchin. The thought of primarying him is laughable. Just hand the Republicans a full Seat in the senate why don’t you.

        • Syrc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It will definitely solve some problems while causing arguably no new ones, I think that’s enough to push for something to happen.

      • Sharkwellington@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bernie, Joe, and the other guy are all within 4 years of age with each other. Bernie is the only one in that group who’s decided NOT to run, so I’m not sure why you’re singling him out. ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ Generally the opinion I’ve seen from his supporters is that he can do better from his current position and that his chance at the presidency has passed.

      • Drusas@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        When there’s only one politician of any consequence out there who represents your views…

    • InternetUser2012@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I generally don’t wish ill will on people. That being said, this asshole isn’t a human in my book. He’s just an evil hate filled pile of shit, and it will be a great day for democracy and America when he does die.

      • LeFantome@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        I am not going to openly condemn anyone. That said, Mitch opens himself up to some interesting ethical questions.

        Is it ok to sacrifice one man to save 300 hundred million?

        How about to reduce the medium / long term risk to billions?

      • kool_newt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t wish harm on anyone, well except Mitch McConnell. Oh, and Steve Bannon. Oh, and Bobo and … Oh, well I guess I do wish plenty of harm.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m convinced that McConnell is human, but an agent controlled by the Reptilians to destroy us from within. As evidence, I submit the nauseated look on his face most of the time. The real Mitch is still in there, and is horrified at the terrible things he’s forced to do. Obviously, this latest incident occurred because the radio signal to the control chip in his brain got disrupted.

        Ted Cruz is the one who is not human. He’s their next attempt, a Reptilian in a (bad) human suit. As evidence, well, just look at him. Their later iterations have gotten a little better, like Taylor Greene, Bannon, and Boebert, but still firmly in the Uncanny Valley. Some of them are so convincingly human, though, that I’m not sure if they’re Reptilians in disguise, or some sort of latter-day Sonderkommando.

        I have to believe this, because it’s the only way that the GQP makes any damn sense.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I want to be very clear: I will never support or condone violence. But when this parasite dies (from natural causes), the entire country will be massively better off for it.

      • NovaPrime@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        All violence is not equal. Unjustified and unprovoked violence is not the same as justified violence in self defense, for example. To say that one does not support violence is to paint with a very large brush and over important nuance and context

        • Empricorn@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t believe self-defense is violence. For example, I believe Ukraine has every right to capture, injure, kill, and drive out all Russian invaders as they protect their country.

          I get what you’re saying, but believe me: I understand how broad my brush is, yet I still don’t like violence. In my opinion some things are just black and white… 🤷‍♂️

          • milkjug@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            A little surprised that you’re getting downvoted for this, but I suppose your opinion on what constitutes violence is a value judgment rather than a dispassionate definition. Ukraine driving out Russian invaders from their homeland using whatever means necessary, including violence to the fullest extent allowed by the Geneva Convention, is absolutely justified in my book.

          • BeegYoshi@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            being justified or not has nothing to do with whether something is violent. if someone is getting hurt, maimed, or killed, that’s violence, no matter how much they deserve it.

          • trainsaresexy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sounds like the end justifies the means, which is itself a tricky statement. Though I think I know what you’re saying.

              • trainsaresexy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I think it is what you’re saying but not what you are intending to say. It sounds like there are conditions under which violence is ok, though violence itself is something to be avoided. Eg. Ukraine can defend itself using violence because violence in defence is ok, which in my mind sounds a lot like the end (self preservation) justifies the means (war).

        • Empricorn@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I know it’s frustrating, but some things are more important than the end result. People who have to kill someone are often traumatized. For life. We weren’t built to destroy each other, and by doing so, we also lose some of our humanity…

          If you go out and kill a murderer… the net total of murderers in the world remains the same.

          • trainsaresexy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think we are lucky to not have to make those choices.

            My uncle was murdered and my grandma ended up spending a lot of time talking with the murderer. That’s one way. There is also no shortage of stories about people killing those who have traumatized family members (rape and murder). In my case the murderer was troubled, but in other cases (Mitch) they are psychopathic people who I think should be removed from society one way or another. That’s my sentiment towards Mitch and his health problems. I am completely ambivalent about his well being. To be completely anti-violence is a position, but it is a hard one to hold in reality.

      • Move to lemm.ee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        I want to be very clear: I will never support or condone violence. But when this parasite dies (from natural causes), the entire country will be massively better off for it.

        Why? Violence inflicted by pen is still violence. He’s killed thousands.

  • STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    216
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    proof that old fuckers shouldn’t be allowed in politics due to a literally dysfunctioning brain

    EDIT: to say ‘ageism is bigotry’ is a gross oversimplification. I’m not prejudiced against people above a certain age, I’m against the idea of allowing individuals with dementia or other degenerative conditions having political control over other people while literally having impeded brain functioning and judgement.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve had some relatives reach a very old age and this kind of thing is just part of the territory.

      However my aged relatives were not in positions of great power. Neither should this man be.

    • FoxBJK@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      Feinstein and now McConnell. It shouldn’t be necessary but it’s now bipartisan proof that maybe we should force people of a certain age into retirement.

      I’ll happily admit to being ageist. I don’t care. Once you hit the mid 70s (arguably earlier) you should be ordered to go the fuck home by Congress.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        if it’s ageist to say that people can be too old to be in government, then it’s definitely ageist to say they can be too young, too.

        Imagine having a toddler command the nuclear football. (oh wait. we already had that.)

        • Drusas@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unfortunately, ageism in the US is only illegal against older adults. I really struggled with this when I was overseeing young volunteers, one of whom was being treated like crap just because he was young by the older people he was volunteering for. Totally legal for them to outright speak of his age as making him useless (and he was a good worker! and kind!). I was so angry that I couldn’t do much of anything to help him.

      • Drusas@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t think it should necessarily be a hard age cap (which is illegal in the US, anyway), but I do think all politicians and judges should have to be able to pass cognitive function tests annually with absolutely no concerns raised by them. I’d require it probably as low as age 50 or 55, because dementia can come early.

        And they should not be allowed to choose their own doctors for these exams. They should all see the same handful of doctors, randomly assigned each year, so as to reduce bias.

    • kool_newt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      TBH, I’m ok with ageism, we already do it. It’s clear a 6 year old can’t run the country, it should be just as clear a 76 year old can’t either for the same reasons, mental development stage.

      • Billiam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I find it interesting in the US that discriminating against the young is socially acceptable, while discriminating against the elderly is social suicide. Shows how much political power the Boomers wield.

    • ShunkW@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      The really annoying part is that I’ve seen people on the right already telling people to respect his health issues. Except when Biden stumbles over one word he should be removed from power and hospitalized for life. They don’t even pretend with the hypocrisy anymore

    • solstice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      I worked in congress in 2002 after I graduated. The congressman I worked for was old to me then. I saw him on tv the other day and the guy looked one foot in the grave. I hadn’t thought about him in years and then I saw him and I’m like dude wtf why are you still working?! It’s shocking.

    • Stovetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a reminder that Dianne Feinstein is still in office, too. She’s not even lucid anymore.

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      I live how you guys say this, while also demanding Bernie, a fucking dinosaur himself

      • BReel@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        If there was another candidate who held the same values, but was of a younger age. I’d go for the younger one for sure.

        It’s not Bernie because he’s amazing. It’s because he’s the best we got.

        Same how I vote for x party, not because they are good. But because they are less bad.

        • tate@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          No. Bigotry is when you assign a presumption to a group based on a completely unrelated parameter associated with that group. It would not be bigotry to limit the age of those serving in congress. It is bigotry to say that every old person’s brain doesn’t work.

          “proof that old fuckers shouldn’t be allowed in politics due to a literally dysfunctioning brain”

          • AngrilyEatingMuffins@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            So by and large young brains don’t work as well as adult brains. The same is true for the elderly. Your argument makes no sense except you’re biased against the young. During Vietnam would you rather have had Nixon and
            Kissinger in charge or some wicked smart 17 year old hippies. I know what most people would choose these days.

  • popemichael@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    111
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t believe that it’s discriminatory when I say that people with severe neurological disorders and dementia shouldn’t be making laws.

    • bigkix@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      He is 85. What the fuck drives you besides greed and power to stay in Congress past your 70th? He will probably die in a couple of years, but still clings to this power trip with bare hands. Just illustrates how fucking greedy and corrupted that mf is.

      • jonne
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        The issue is seniority rules. You only get the real power (committee seats, etc) after you’ve been in the senate for decades. Giving that up is probably hard if you’ve spent decades climbing that ladder.

      • Agent641@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Like go fishing, or whittle some shit on a porch. Youre gonna die soon and you want to spend your final days on the hill with the lizards and cockroaches?

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I keep saying that the fact that Trump has made it to 77 is a testament to modern medical science.

        • TheActualDevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Nah, his longevity is from decent genes and the fact that he’s never had to worry or stress about anything real his entire life. Poverty is the number one killer of Americans. The lack of access to healthcare, having to overwork your body and mind to make ends meet and the constant stress of wondering if your next paycheck will be enough to feed and house you and your loved ones is killer on the heart. Shitty people don’t live long lives because they’re shitty. It’s because they’re rich. IT just so happens, all rich people are also shitty people. But I’ve met some poor shitty people that die early because their heart just gives out from overwork.

        • Techmaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It’s like Eugenia Cooney. How is she still alive? How do you treat your body with absolute disdain and survive?

          • S_204@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Mick Jagger just turned 80.

            I eat pretty well, exercise daily and I doubt I’m making it that long…

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Even if we are going to continue to let the elderly rule us, an event like this should result in an instant resignation. But no, he has to claw onto the reins of power until they’re taken from his cold, dead hands.

  • meco03211@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    92
    ·
    1 year ago

    Isn’t that the type of incident you should be immediately going to the hospital for? And to maintain some shitty image of power they just yank him to the back line and have him stand there?

    • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Man it took waaay to long before someone even reacted and even then they didn’t focus on his well being but on the press conference.

      What a sad sight, zero empathy

      • Kerrigor@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        38
        ·
        1 year ago

        He’s one of the few people in this world on my “no empathy for him” list. I would’ve just sat back and had some popcorn

        • solstice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’d agree with Mark Twain on this one, I don’t exactly wish anyone to die but I’ll read some obituaries with satisfaction, paraphrased.

      • scarabic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        They were torn between wanting to help him but also wanting to minimize the appearance of the episode for him. Both of which are valid concerns for him.

  • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thoughts and prayers that he has some incurable medical condition.

    He’s been a piece of human garbage all his career, so let’s not sugar coat things now.

    • AllonzeeLV@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Controlling the future of a world they no longer have any meaningful stake in.

      Their voters too. It’s hilarious that the greatest rage about the direction of the country comes from ancient conservative fucks that are circling the drain and won’t even be alive to feel the effects. And it isn’t even anger for the sake of the well being of their descendants, as their policy positions are almost always to cut everyone off from societal help when they need it just to revel in the pain of anyone outside their in-group.

      It’s just very important for Old Republicans to know that Americans that don’t look or act like them will continue to be kicked while they’re down after they’re gone. It’s like they think heaven will just sitting on a cloud with popcorn watching police murder black teenagers and poor women getting declined for abortions.

  • Leviathan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anyway, remember how hard he worked to take away benefits from 9/11 first responders?

    I have no sympathy for this man, anybody else want to just reminisce about the horrible shit he’s done instead?

  • Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Republican, Democrat, Independent, Goat-Sacrificer, Whatever; we all need to vote in people that are actively working to improve the future. You know, the one boomers don’t even believe in…

    • madcaesar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      62
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      For now, that’s democrat. I know I know two party system sucks etc etc but we need to stop the bleeding before we try to walk again.

      Trump and the GQP have set us all back 2 decades and they aren’t done dragging us down.

      • Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        100% agree. We have to halt and try to undo the damage they are actively doing to our country (Supreme Court, anyone?), then we can focus on our antiquated “first-past-the-post” system…

  • TendieMaster69@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    These fucking zombies will stay in the government until they decay until dust. What a fucked system. TERM LIMITS YOU FUCKS

    • Crismus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just need mandatory retirement at 70 maximum. Term limits have too many downsides. We just need to make them ineligible when they’re too old to think clearly.

    • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      We have term limits!

      They’re called elections.

      But people are too lazy to go vote. Last election cycle only around HALF the registered voters could be bothered to go vote. If the other half voted, they could overturn pretty much any election in this country. But they can’t be bothered. They rather complain about a lack of term limits online.

      • BroccoliFarts@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Unless Biden decides not to run, I’m almost certainly going to vote for him. Not voting or voting third party puts us closer to authoritarian leaders.

        Although at this point, I’m kind of wondering if the GOP has it right on climate change. If climate change is a giant volcano, humanity is free-falling directly into it. The GOP wants to point headfirst and tuck our arms by our side to speed towards it. The DNC wants to deploy a parachute that will ensure we slow down, but still fall into the volcano much more slowly and painfully.

        Sorry Earth. Humanity fucked it up. We were too stupid to figure out fossil fuels and greenhouse gasses early in industrialization. When it was realized at first, greedy business executives hid it from society. When society at large became aware of it, we were too selfish to give up fossil fuels. By the time green energy was made feasible, it was too late to avoid 2C, which may trigger positive feedback processes that humans have no hope of controlling.

        I’m not falling into the trap of “it’s too late so let’s not do anything and drill, baby, drill”, but some days I wonder if the radical energy policy will extend the suffering.

        Anyways, hope everyone has a great Thursday!

        • Hazdaz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even the harshest climate scientists don’t share the same doom and gloom narrative that you do. I think you should watch fewer hollywood movies. Maybe go outside for a bit and disconnect yourself from the internet for a few hours.

          • BroccoliFarts@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            At one point in time, the goal was to remain below 1.5C heating (I forget over which time frame), with the worst effects kicking in at 2.0C. I believe one of the recent IPCC reports suggest to stay near 2.0C, we have to sequester carbon using a process that’s not invented yet.

            I believe that current thought is that we will reach 2.0 C of heating even if we stop fossil fuel usage, entirely, tomorrow.

            My post was pretty pessimistic, but the reality is pretty bad. The reason that all that carbon was sequestered prior to burning it is that plant life existed before fungi for a significant amount of time. Plants would sequester carbon, die and fall, then remain and not rot.

            Today, sequestering carbon can only be done by adding biomass. Trees sequester carbon until they die, then release all of the carbon back into the atmosphere (either quickly in a forest fire or slowly as they rot). Existing forests really aren’t doing much sequestering once they reach steady-state biomass (growing trees balanced by rotting trees).

            I have no idea what the cycle is in the ocean, though. I know it’s 70% of Earth’s photosynthesis. Maybe the situation is not quite as dire.

            The future is uncertain, perhaps humanity will figure out methods to mitigate things. There are thoughts that injecting synthetic volcano ash into the atmosphere might be feasible with today’s technology. This would emulate the cooling effect seen with volcanic eruptions that reach high enough. The effect can last a couple of years.

      • wazoobonkerbrain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have term limits!

        They’re called elections.

        Term limits and elections are not synonymous. A term limit restricts the number of times that a politician can run, it puts them out of office regardless of whether or not they could win another election. They teach this in like the third grade.

    • Thorry84@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure that would actually fix anything. These old fucks would simply arrange for puppets to take their place. Young yes men who do anything they say. At any time it would be unclear who is actually in power.

      This is already the case with big companies controlling politicians. When it comes to money and power, the scum always find a way.

  • kool_newt@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 year ago

    NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

    No person shall hold an elected or appointed position past the age of 10 years younger than average life expectancy, to be updated each census year. A special election is held to replace the person when this age is reached in the case of elected office. A new appointment required in 30 days for appointed positions.

    • hascat@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      I like this, but I’d drop the special election in favor of disqualifying candidates who would age out during their term.

    • Blackmist@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      One of the few issues where you can legit say “both parties are as bad as each other”.

      Half these people should be retired.

      • teamevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because it isn’t right vs left, it’s various flavors of have vs the have nots. Just half the have nots (probably more) are stupid as shit, according to the other half. Then we just bicker while they fucking fleece our dumbasses.

        • MelonTheMan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Keep saying it. Everyone agrees and yet congress doesn’t enact it 🤔 I’m just glad the oligarchs understand the will of the people better than us rabble!

    • krolden@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Good idea. Much better than hard age limits as it may actually convince the boomers in charge to improve overall quality of life.

    • Zyansheep@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Disaster happens, child mortality goes up a lot somehow, average life expectancy plummets below 25, no one is eligible for any Senate or House office 👀

      • kool_newt@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        average life expectancy plummets below 25

        I think our rules about senate qualification would be the least of our worries at that point!

      • agent_flounder@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Maybe they would’ve done more to prevent the sudden drop in life expectancy. Then again they would also pass any law that could extend life expectancy. Like making it illegal to pull the plug, outlawing dnr, etc.

    • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Already you can be removed if you are unable to carry out your duties. It is the will to do it that is lacking. I don’t think tying terms to an average life expectancy is reasonable. You could have a pretty wide range across states for instance and people would constantly sue over how it should be calculated.

      I think a better angle would be to just set term limits. Set them longer for congressmen if people want.

      • Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think most of the issues in the world right now are caused by career politicians who’s only interested is getting re-elected.

      • DarthDaddy87@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree. Maybe if their grasp on power was tied to the average life expectancy in their continuency they might actually make an effort to improve it. Sure they’ll sue but, I think it’s worth trying.

  • PagingDoctorLove@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Is it bad that I hope this is a sign of medical issues that will force him into retirement? I’m sick of a misogynist turtle calling the shots.

    • whofearsthenight@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like, I generally wouldn’t wish this type of thing on someone, but I think about how many people are going to die as a result of him stealing a SC seat and ramming ACB through, or even just his stonewalling anything an Obama tried to do just so Obama couldn’t get the W regardless of how many people’s lives were hurt, ruined, or ended, and I gotta say, I really wonder what I’m having for dinner tonight. I think I’ll have a dessert though, maybe ice cream, but open to suggestions.

    • BrineBlade@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately, probably not. Reminder that there’s a rep that’s practically at the point of being Weekend at Burnie’s-ed

    • littlecolt@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Someone will take his place and do the same stuff. He’s just the focus for blame. He offers cover to others.

      • nbafantest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If we’re being honest, the replacement senator will be even worse. And the Republican Senate leader will be worse.

        Which is a horrible thought

  • Uniquitous@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately he seems to have recovered, was back out there walking and talking again before too long. Still, an encouraging sign.

    • dtc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      1 year ago

      He went backstage to finish feasting on the infants.

      You don’t live to be 1350 by not drinking the blood of the innocent.