324
Pelosi Wants FBI to Investigate Pro-Palestine Protesters for Financial Ties to Russia
(www.rollingstone.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
324 points (93.1% liked)
politics
31317 readers
3314 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Here is my completely nonpartisan hot take. We should pass a constitutional amendment that ties the maximum age to hold public office (including judges) to the Social Security "Normal Retirement Age" at the time of passing. That is currently 67 years old. You can do whatever you want past 67, but you can't hold public office.
Do you want them to make the retirements age 90? I’d rather not give those assholes a perverse incentive to reduce benefits.
I did state "at time of passage" but we might as well say "at time of drafting" to avoid shenanigans.
In a lot of a states you can bring forward laws to ballots that amend the state constitutions with enough public signatures. I think in our modern day lack of a useful government officials we should use this tool far more often to attempt to ensure a healthier government.
What difference will that make? Also, what happens if/when life extension/age reversal becomes an everyday thing? Government regulations often move at a glacial pace, why fix something in place now that will be hard to remove when it's completely irrelevant. We are even still saddled with the stupid EC and the idea that states all get 2 senators, no matter their population size. How long would it take to remove a rule like this that quickly becomes obviously ridiculous in the near future?
Young politicians will always have an incentive to consider raising the age limit. This isn't a system that leads to irreversible change when and if the time arises where the limit is no longer appropriate.