this post was submitted on 08 Sep 2023
366 points (95.3% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2095 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The move would extend her 36-year House career and continue to freeze her would-be California successors in a long-standing holding pattern.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] anon232@lemm.ee 87 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's time for nationwide term limits. You get to serve your term and do what you'd like, then give the reins over to the next person. Sick of all these fucking old ghouls who cling onto their positions of power like it's a fucking philosophers stone for them.

[–] greenskye@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd be ok with at least an age cap. No one can run after they're 65. Leave governing to those who will be alive to see the impact of their policies.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The problem with an age cap is that us younger generations are going to be the first beneficiaries of life extension medicine. We'd need to remove/raise the age cap almost immediately.

I fully expect some of my generation to break 120 and still be as spry as a 40 year old. We'll be the outliers and guinea pigs, but I view the potential benefits as worth it.

[–] SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where on earth did you get this idea? Life expectancy has literally decreased. I see no reason to expect a drastic increase of it.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not for the tail end of Gen X. And the only reason you kids have a lower expectancy than we do is cause you guys got even fatter. I'm in good shape, and all of you kids that are in good shape have a higher life expectancy than me.

Also life expectancy doesn't factor in coming technological advances which I thought was your whole point...

[–] SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What's your source for this? Not sure how life expectancy could be so precisely calculated among sub groups like that.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I read a few studies that came to that conclusion a few years ago. I'd love to provide the source, but I have lost the ability to find anything remotely historical with any of the search engines in the last year or so.

As far as the tech angle is concerned look up Kurzgesagt's video on life extension tech, they have a few, but the one that discusses senescent cells is the most important. Senolyitc drugs have been on the market for a year or two now, so we have a way of preventing cancer, which is the current disease that takes out most people, with a side benefit of forcing new cell growth.

Thanks for this response. I'll see what I can find