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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
I don't know. As I get older I am getting opinions. A lot of them. On everything! What sauce is best with cheeseburgers. How short should my neighbours' lawn be. Should banks be open on sundays.
By 80, if I'm still kicking, I'll be ready to discuss any boring topic for hours before a vote. Anything.
Jesus Christ. Get the old fucks out of Congress.
I know some really spry 80 year olds but I wouldn’t trust any of them with such responsibility. They’re out of touch, forgetful, etc. Great partners for golf, gaming, and other forms of entertainment but I don’t want them in charge of anything.
all federal employees should have mandatory retirement at 70. Including congress, judges, and president.
I'd go to 75, maybe 78, but no more than 80. That's definitely time to go.
Mean age in the US is 39. Lets round it to 40, make it 1.5 times that and cap it at 60.
75 is the mandatory retirement age for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
Something like 120 in congress are over 70 years old, so over 20%.
bOtH pArTiEs are unwilling to fix this, that 20% are of course much more powerful than newer members. Maxine Waters, Mitch McConnell, and others are over 80; McConnell is visibly, horribly, embarrassingly impaired, and still in office. Maxine is 87 and is the modern incarnation of Smaug, sitting upon her immense treasure hoard.
Yet another humiliation for Americans... and they have the best healthcare insurance on Earth, while the lifespan of their own constituents falls.
Go ahead and vote, but I don't think we can vote our way out of this and that change must be forced upon them by others.
John Roberts was 67 when his geriatric lapse rendered the 2024 election illegitimate and fraudulent.
79% of Americans want age caps.
Pilots are retired at 65 years old.
The unfolding geriatric catastrophe of the White House is enabled by Democratic Party failure to press the issue of age. Geriatrics with a stranglehold on party politics damned us to continued geriatric incompetence.
It follows that the only path to restoring the constitutional order is the immediate removal of all geriatric politicians at every level. Federal, State, Judiciary, Legislative, Executive. 100% gone.
It's not difficult: "respect for elders" shouldn't be a suicide pact.
The Democratic Party, which is a private institution not beholden to the electorate, has a seniority system for high ranking positions. The Republican Party doesn’t. I’m no fan of Republicans, but this should be understood by anyone trying to understand the situation.
Once it's understood that geriatric politicians are a disease, the only thing that matters is removing geriatric politicians, regardless of party.
I don’t disagree, but I think it will be more difficult with the Democratic Party given the way the party is run.
Mine’s 82 and been in some sort of office since 1974, senator since ‘09. And he’s running again. I’m kinda surprised the MAGAts haven’t primaried him. He’s not anti-Trump, but also not really invested in the vision, more of a classic “good old boy” Republican.
No functioning democracy allows their representatives to sit for twelve terms.
12 terms sounds ridiculous, but they're only 2 year terms. That's far too short, and only keeps every Congressional Rep in constant reelection mode. No wonder Congress does such a crappy job, they're always raising money, and/or campaigning.
They should have a 4 year term, with 50% being elected in the Midterms and the Presidential elections.
Agreed. Plato even wrote about it in Laws.
In "Laws," Plato suggests that senators should serve for a term of one year to ensure that they remain accountable and do not become too entrenched in power.
Eh, I get what you're saying, but term limits aren't a prerequisite for democracies.
The problem was neoliberals ran the party for generations and would ~~blackmail~~ blackball anyone that worked on a primary against a neoliberal incumbent.
Even to the point they were robbing state parties and threatening to cut entire state parties off of their reps didn't toe the line.
That's over, it's been over for a year.
Even if the current DNC chair did a 180 as I'm typing this, he's been dumping all the money stolen via the Victory Fund back on state parties. The DNC couldn't use the old threats if they wanted to.
Without that pressure from the top, progressives will replace neoliberal and republican incumbents.
And if a progressive gets thru the presidential primary and into the Oval, then they get to name the next DNC president.
That's what pisses me off the most these days....
I spent decades trying to convince people the DNC was a problem. And as soon as the voting members fixed it, everyone started to realize how bad it was, but not that it's been fixed.
I don't understand how people keep falling for billionaire propaganda.
I don’t believe it’s been fixed and it will take some convincing. And I’m probably not the only one.
Same boat for me. I can't argue however that there have been many steps in the right directly recently.
I don’t understand how people keep falling for billionaire propaganda.
Because there is, quite literally, nothing else. Who is talking about it being fixed besides you? Anybody with any credibility?
The DNC's problem is exemplified by the old joke - If a Democrat found a magic lamp, rubbed it, and got three wishes from a djinn, they'd negotiate down to one and then wish for whatever the nearest Republican wants.
The DNC doesn't stand for anything beyond lining the pockets of insider traders like Nancy Pelosi. Same as the Republicans, just minus all the goosestepping, conspiracy theories, and shilling for supplements. They aren't the same, but being the only alternative doesn't inherently make them better by default. They lost the plot trying to make the Clintons into a dynasty.
Fixing the systemic problems at the root of this goes all the way back to how these parties responded to Ross Perot and the elimination of third party viability. A strictly two party system is not a functional democracy. It's a one party system masquerading as two parties.
There's really one political party in the USA - the monied party. Which is why there's so much billionaire propaganda for people to fall for.
Who is talking about it being fixed besides you? Anybody with any credibility?
NPR is a fantastic resource...
Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin says President Trump is a "dictator-in-chief" whose agenda is "fascism dressed in a red tie" and his party must fight back against his policies.
"Now look, folks, I'm sick and tired of this Democratic party bringing a pencil to a knife fight," Martin said. "We cannot be the only party that plays by the rules anymore. We've got to stand up and fight. We're not going to have a hand tied behind our back anymore."
Speaking during the first session of the DNC's summer meeting in Minneapolis on Monday, Martin said the Democratic Party has to stop trying to win arguments over policy and politics and do more to win future elections.
">You know what winning the argument gets you? A nice round of applause and a few likes on Instagram," Martin said. "But the reality is it doesn't make life any better for any person. We have to stop settling on winning arguments with each other. We have to win elections."
https://www.npr.org/2025/08/26/nx-s1-5515631/dnc-democrats-ken-martin-trump-facism
Fixing the systemic problems at the root
Is what happened over a year ago when the ~400 voting members of the DNC pivoted away from neoliberals...
If the last year wasn't enough, look at his track record in Minnesota and what happened during the decade he ran it
He's a known quantity, the last year of gains hasn't been a fluke, and everyone is just as much "not trump" in those elections as they've always been.
The DNC doesn’t stand for anything
This is the problem...
You think of the DMC as an entity...
It's not, it's ~400 people that vote for a dictator for four years if and only if a Republican wins the presidency.
2025 was the first time since 2017 since those ~400 got a say, because we settled for Biden as voters in the middle. They fucked up in 2017, they didn't know what to do and Hillary and the "victory fund" was the only thing keeping them from bankruptcy, and that came with strings.
But by 2025 a lot of them were dead or no longer voting members, and a few had changed their mind.
So we pivoted
You have to understand how the system works, to understand when it changes, why it changes, and how it changes
I 100% understand the anger with "the party" and for the last 30 years I'd agreed with you, if I was older I'd have agreed for longer.
But shit changed, and if Martin paves the wave for FDR 2.0, that's who picks the next head of the DNC.
You can be mad it's a long process, but don't fucking spend your time telling everyone to quit a marathon when we're 200 yards from the finish line and no ones in sight behind us.
You have no fucking clue how hard it's been to get this close, this is not the time to quit.
2025 was the first time since 2017
Your timeline is misaligned by at least a decade and missing the forest for the trees. In 2025, we're on the brink of WWIII. The DNC has been hand-in-iron-fist with the GQP since 9/11 and the Patriot Act. Both parties merrily marching us to fascist authoritarianism. The only disagreement being who'd be the eventual Fuhrer.
But shit changed, and if Martin paves the wave for FDR 2.0
This is the problem with Dems. They're fixated on repeating the mistakes of the past because they've only read the sanitized versions of history used in public schools. FDR 1.0 caused the double-dip in the Great Depression with his New Deal. Friedman's Economic History of the United States covered it thoroughly. Maybe try reading some more modern economics strategies, like UBI, or wildly crazy shit like re-enacting the prohibition against Congress owning securities, enacting anti-gerrymandering legislation, and open-auditing of all electronic voting machines, plus enacting a general cap on all campaign expenditures of a nominal value with any remainders automatically allocated to the federal treasury to restore impartiality to our elected representatives.
The anger you're seeing is because not only is the process long, but the outcomes are stupid and not worthwhile. Biden put on a demonstration of what competent leadership looks like. It was impressive to watch the things his cabinet was accomplishing. If it were any other yesteryear, it would have been an administration lauded for its competence.
But literally the one thing they didn't touch was any of the linchpins to their lucrative kleptocratic establishment. All of the mechanisms that could have prevented allowing a known pedophile a second term in the oval office would have required addressing systemic corruptions that would have disturbed their seats of power. Instead, the Biden administration had other priorities instead of preventing what did happen - a rigged election. Thanks for the "assist", Elon. As a reward for his help, Elon gets to rummage around in federal databases destroying evidence of this and other crimes. And Dems get to watch once again, as the minority party plays them for the fools they are.
You might not think this is the time to quit. I don't think you should have ever started because you're still pulling for the wrong team. There is no evidence to suggest your efforts are anything but too little, much too late.
At this point, I am incredibly skeptical that America has a peaceful way out of the current situation we're in. Dems are very much not anti-authoritarian. They will not give up the executive powers that the GQP has so graciously secured for them. That's the one thing you can always count on. Power, once centralized, is only ever decentralized through violence.
Your timeline is misaligned by at least a decade and missing the forest for the trees
You're confusing me describing reality, with me saying that should be the way it is...
That's the same reason medicine women were burnt at the stake.
I didn't read anything else you typed, and I won't see anything else you ever type again...
Shits too important to waste effort on lost causes.
Shits too important to waste effort on lost causes.
If you really believed that, you'd be focusing your efforts elsewhere.
The propaganda is effective, people are stupid, and education is intentionally poor to keep it that way.
Refusing to allow voters to re-elect their preferred candidate just because they've hit some arbitrary time limit doesn't seem very democratic to me
We definitely have a ton of problems with our campaign finance regulations and enforcement of those regulations which makes it so incumbents have a hugely unfair advantage because they're just swimming in oceans of perfectly legal bribe money, but terms limits are a bad way to fix that problem imo. Punishes voters for lawmakers being shitty.
I hear this argument a lot. "Voters should be trusted."
Voters gave us Trump.
Once you have power, you don't want to let it go. It doesn't matter if you are elected every two years or every four. You have power and as you stay in office you accumulate more and more power. In theory it's to help your constituents but in the end it corrupts.
We can decide that that people shouldn't be career politicians. We can go encourage these people that they can still serve the public by doing other things besides holding office.
Democracy always has arbitrary rules to it, nothing can ever be "fully" democratic.
If the system would be that at the end of second term the politicians get (with dignity, grace, and honours) executed in order to keep the ruling body impartial & fresh that is just part of the system.
Exactly as much as that babies can't vote, that non-citizens or women can't vote (despite living there), electoral bs votes, mandatory/non-mandatory voting, etc.
Most of the above are there to mitigate a circumstance that isn't really avoidable.
One of such is ppl not investing the time to study the issues & options (vibe-voting, or like supporting a sports team) ... yet later showing consistent public support for things that are not getting even discussed.
So what is more/less democratic - "allowing" ppl to vote in the same 90+ incompetent scammer & then not getting eg pubic healthcare sorted, or simply allowing two terms max & possibly give voters more options by definition?
Technically an autocratic, unelected leader executing policies by public demand (voting, polling) can be more democratic than a system that elects leaders that then don't execute the public will.
(Is it really undemocratic that presidents of most countries can't seek a third term??? Or is the system more democratic bcs of it, bcs the demos has to crat more? Ofc not to mention the obvious risk of abuse of power which grows with each day a politician is in power - which directly threatens democratic values by default.)
Also there isn't really a core difference between setting a term limit to the president (of whatever) vs the term limit of representatives (of whatever). Yes the issues are more pronounced with the president, but not dissimilar.
death is the new political retirement
Time to turn it over to the next generation. Oh wait. The next generation already hit retirement age!
With less than 1/10 of the money.
Age limits and Term limits please. You're not going to be doing any high level job well enough like this where people's futures are at stake at 80.
If I believed in God, I'd say that it sounds like God had other plans.
But I don't. Maybe he should have enjoyed his retirement while he could.
maybe milking tax payers was his dream retirement?
Term limits or age cap please.
I'm all for an age cap. It should be dynamic and based on some sort of percentage of the average lifespan of the population in their area.
It would provide a good incentive for them to vote in/pass legislation which would help raise the overall life expectancy of everyone.
Wow dies and still seeks a 13th term after. That's how you know we really need age limits.
Or we just allow open coffined mummies to serve in congress.
Marionette mummies. Wouldn't be too different
I would say that no person should be able to run for office after the federal retirement age, but I suspect that would just lead to retirement age being raised.
I'd say no person should be allowed to run for office if they are older than the life expectancy of their constituents minus 10 years.
Gets rid of the senile old people, and gives them an incentive to help their constituents
That’s bad news, TubularTittyFrog.