A vote for Zohran is a vote for anarchy!
Privileged lefty radicals, huh? I thought it was poor people being lefties because they want handouts. Choose one boogeyman lol
Outing them as persons with empathy.
TAKES A REAL GHOUL TO CARE ABOUT THE WELLBEING OF OTHERS. - MAGA
They could complain they’re awfully white and not diverse
We’ve voted celebrities in government positions with NO experience. Enough said.
Fucking trump and then Reagan was a cenile celibrity puppet
Reagan was a 2nd rate actor who was most famous for playing 2nd banana to a literal chimpanzee.
But… Reagan was involved in politics for a long time before he became president. Even before he was governor of California he had his hands in some political roles before he gave up acting.
None of these people have Eric Adams’s swag. None of them will be going to Istanbul to do body shots off an underaged war refugee. None of them are taking their salaries in Bitcoin. None of them want “New York State of Mind” playing from rescue drones paroling Coney Island.
Is this really what our beautiful, bountiful, bootilicious city wants? Are we going to elect a bunch of 30-something civics nerds?
Not on my watch!
OMG! horrible! They’re not even narcissists! How are they gonna politic and hurt the right people? /s
I see so much support for Zohran in the MSM, they keep posting his Ws.
In what world is mid 30s young? I’d rather have a political cabinet of people who have to live with the consequences of their decisions, than a hundred variants of Holden Bloodfeast.
Hey let me think I’m young for at least a few more years!
I do think mid 30s is a great age for getting into politics though. They still have decades left to live with the consequences of their decisions, but they also have a bit more experience with how the world works than idealistic 18 year olds.
Ideally they should also exit politics in less than a century, but I guess we’ll see how that plays out.
Just a bunch of young 30 year olds. You know, the age greater than most of our founding fathers.
It’s certainly good news to me that some elderly politically-actives have been very much in favor of younger politicians. They’ve been very happy to have me around in phone banks, and wish for more candidates around my age.
I’d say mid 30s is perfect, enough real world experience to hopefully be a decent person, enough time left to have ambition for something.
In the world of “our median audience member is 67”.
Hindenburgs.
Woah there I already supported the guy no need for the hard sell
There’s 36-year-olds in the tech industry having difficulty finding work because they’re perceived as too old.
Meanwhile we’ve got a succession of Presidents who are well above retirement age and people act like that’s how things should be.
In what world is mid 30s young? I’d rather have a political cabinet of people who have to live with the consequences of their decisions, than a hundred variants of Holden Bloodfeast.
they are seen as too old because they probably have self-respect and experience. rather than being young eager sychophants that fresh college grads tend to be
Also, young, inexperienced people are easier to mold into those sycophants they want. At 36, they’re more likely to take a step back and say “wait a minute”.
They’re trying to lean on the world Privileged, but the people they need to convince he’s bad already know every other option is also privileged.
The people accusing them of being privileged are all ivy league aristocrats.
That too.
Meanwhile having a 19 year old called Big Balls ransacked the data of an entire nation for personal gain and assault workers doing essential work is no biggie.
Obligatory fuck Rupert Murdoch.
God forbid the people governing are young enough to actually be affected by the long term outcomes of their policies. Almost like they have a reason to care.
Certainly wouldn’t want that
30s… Young…
So I know I’m having an existential crisis over the fact that people my age are leading parties in my country, but I personally think 30 something is an age you should be able to run for political office?
I mean, I personally don’t think that the modern political landscape should be like the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the 1980s.
The US founding fathers decided that the president has to be at least 35, which to me implies that those individuals have had some political experience before becoming president. IMO roughly half the Senate should be under 35, and a good chunk of the House of Representatives should be under 29 considering Senate terms are 6-years long.
Not that you should have to be a “career politician” before becoming president, but it’s fairly common to want to show some experience at leadership/politics.
I’m not really a fan, but look at “Mayor” Pete Buttigeg. One of the biggest attacks against him when he ran was “being president is not the same as being a mayor” (meanwhile we’ll elect CEOs like their experience means anything, but that’s a whole other problem).
I’m not really a fan, but look at “Mayor” Pete Buttigeg. One of the biggest attacks against him when he ran was “being president is not the same as being a mayor” (meanwhile we’ll elect CEOs like their experience means anything, but that’s a whole other problem).
Y’all also elect representatives and senators as presidents, but that’s the legislative branch so that actually has less in common with presidency than mayors or CEOs, both of which are more executive branch roles
I believe the age limit was, at least in part, an attempt to immitate the Cursus Honorum of Rome - where to become Consul you were supposed to go through a series of lower posts and therefore couldn’t really get that high up before a certain age. But even then, it was very prestigious for a Roman to be Consul “in his year” (ie. as early as theoretically possible), rather than it being a lifetime achievement award.
I am intrigued as to their system of electing two of everything. I think that could help alleviate a lot of our problems. Two attorney generals, to secretaries of Agriculture or state, Etc.
More than anything though I think we should reestablish the Tribunate, vested with the power to veto government actions and offer sanctuary and all that.
Somehow I get the feeling it would end the same way the actual tribunate ended.
Well, the Tribunate helped curtail be Patricians excesses for 400 plus years. Quite a bit longer than we have as a country.
I think they got their first ones around 500 BC when the plebs did a general strike encamping to a hill.
Then they had another general strike what was it 300 BC ish where they got more tribunes and got some other reforms.
Point.
Experience in politics is a detraction nowadays. They are all sold out to greater and lesser degrees with a few exceptions like my man bernie but even he backs off some issues.
Jon Stewart 2028!
Honestly, maybe having served as a congressman, senator, mayor or other form of public office, for at least 4 years; would be a rather sensible requirement for becoming president.
I think having a pipeline of official service would be good. Here is a concept for that:
After your first term is completed, you can elect to either run for a second term, or to be promoted to the higher level. If you get promoted, you can’t have a second term on a lower level, so your career gets shorter if you move up the ladder quickly. However, if you fail to be elected to the higher post, you are barred from taking a 2nd term of your prior offices. This is a “are you sure people like you?” mechanism that theoretically would cull bad politicians from holding onto political power forever.
Mayor -> State legislature -> national congress -> president, something like that. Assuming one term for each posting, that would be 12 years of service before getting a chance at being president. 24 years of political presence if you took two full terms for each post. A politician can opt to have a glorious but short career, or to take a longer and more surer route that yields better odds of getting into the highest office.
End result: Actually good politician loses to a demagogue on the higher election, loses prior post
Theory is nice and all, but reality is that humans suck.
I mean surely if the lower limit to becoming president is 35, then surely the campaign team to become Mayor (not president) of a city can have an average age of 30?
Also, I don’t give a shit what the Founding Fathers said, not just because I’m not American, but because I don’t think that because a group of revered men said something means it’s right. That’s something I’d expect from religion rather than politics, which is apt because there are two (maybe three if you count Rushmore) Congress funded pieces of art that depict George Washington as a God.
OR, we could flip it and forbid CEOs that have a financial self interest from becoming president. Didn’t they used to have to put things in a trust? Guess we threw that rule out.
I think the founding fathers are often brought up because they forged the document we used to think was important for these situations and there actually used to be some (not all) good stuff in there. But I hear you that times have changed.
It was just decorum putting assets in trusts for prez, modern era laws did restrict other officials to some degree.
In 2016 the Republicans just refused to honor those laws and nobody held them to account, now they are not really bothering to pretend. Open corruption.
The Constitution does forbid emoluments, but that is ignored by our captured (in)justice department.
I’m not even fully sure it was good at the time? Like I agree, it was a document of the time, but even of the time it isn’t a very good document.
- It was written, by and for the benefit of rich male plantation owners. The voting requirements (although they have changed) was effectively for the Landed Gentry rather than “the People”. The whole document was for people who in 1776 were worried they might lose their slaves and wanted to take native land in the West as well as not pay taxes without a commons seat (which, in 1776, was people the landed gentry or their sons). As a result, things get a little bit tricky.
- The Office of the President was made with George Washington in mind and only him in mind. Like that’s what the people at the time did. The problem with writing the executive branch with that in mind is that for one, George Washington is/was mortal and two someone other than George Washington would come along and do things that the founders didn’t like. And I’m going to be real with you right now. George Washington had and still has a Personality Cult and as a result a lot of power was heaped on him. Both elections he ran in he won unopposed. The first war the US did in the post constitution period was the Whiskey Rebellion, where Pensylvannia Farmers, a lot of them unrepresented in government, rebelled against the Federal Government over Taxes on Whiskey. Yes. I am not making that. Personality cults are something you should always avoid, but there are two (maybe three if you include Mount Rushmore) congress funded pieces of Art that depict George Washington as a God. One of which is in the Occulus of the Congress Rotunda. Americans treat Washington and it’s founding fathers with a type of worshipfulness that I only see in some of the worst dictatorships. In the UK, we don’t even treat our Monarchs like that.
- Even Thomas “I had a 14 year old sex slave” Jefferson said that the constitution and laws in general should have a lifespan of at least 19 years. If that was suggested today, in America, he would be shot, but he’s kinda right. There are things that the US does that are completely undemocratic and even totalitarian that are done because they use the constitution as an excuse.
- It is not merely static, it has become a holy text. No really, there’s paintings of Jesus holding the constitution. Because it’s seen as a holy text, people are unwilling to be critical of it or they use it to justify shit. Take the second amendment for example. When it was written in 1792 (yes you heard) it was made because the US needed a way to respond to rebellions and military crisises and France couldn’t help because of the French Revolution. The gun laws at the time reflected this: to own a gun, you needed to register it with the authorities, keep your gun in a locked box in your home, have the ammo stored separately (in the muster house) and attend training every Monday night in one state. How it’s being used to justify owning a military level AR15, excuse mass shootings, and give hard ons to people who insist they could definitely take out a Predator Drone with a Semi Auto from half a mile away.
The US founding fathers decided that the president has to be at least 35, which to me implies that those individuals have had some political experience before becoming president.
It’s also worth noting that, when the Constitution became a thing, vaccines had yet to make their big change on stage. So, the typical life expectancy was to about 35-ish at the time.
People often have misconceptions about life expectancy in the past. The reason why it was so low was because of childhood/infant mortality. If you made it past early childhood your chances of living decently long were fine. This is not to say that there weren’t tons of hazards. Diseases and medical conditions that are easily avoidable today weren’t back then.
And given what RFK Jr. Is doing now, we will be seeing a resurgence of that in the US today.
