Octopus Overlords

malchior wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:53 pm

Alefroth wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:50 pm

malchior wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:45 pm It's not only a matter of fitness. All of human history involved passing the baton to your children to manage their own affairs. Up until this narcisstic bunch of octogenarians.

How foolish is it to make decisions today based on all of human history?

You seemed to have missed the point.

I don't think I did.

Alefroth wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:50 pm

malchior wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:45 pm It's not only a matter of fitness. All of human history involved passing the baton to your children to manage their own affairs. Up until this narcisstic bunch of octogenarians.

How foolish is it to make decisions today based on all of human history? And to also think things have been just peachy up until this latest batch of old people.

First time reading a malchior post?

malchior wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:52 pm I'm not a fan of term limits but perhaps that is the only way to rid ourselves of these utter failures.

How in the world do you qualify Pelosi an utter failure?

stessier wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:55 pm

Alefroth wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:50 pm

malchior wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:45 pm It's not only a matter of fitness. All of human history involved passing the baton to your children to manage their own affairs. Up until this narcisstic bunch of octogenarians.

How foolish is it to make decisions today based on all of human history? And to also think things have been just peachy up until this latest batch of old people.

First time reading a malchior post?

If only

Alefroth wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:54 pm Wouldn't an upper age limit better solve your problem than a term limit? Someone could be forced out of politics in their 50s that way.

Maybe but part of the problem is that the system was designed for people who lived to 50. If we are reforming we should think through everything. 20 years in Congress or some other amount seems like a fine amount of time to accomplish something, mentor others, and pass the baton. It would certainly help us out with our corruption problems.

I'd prefer rigorous annual physical, mental, and psychological evaluations for everyone in congress.

Alefroth wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:56 pm

malchior wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:52 pm I'm not a fan of term limits but perhaps that is the only way to rid ourselves of these utter failures.

How in the world do you qualify Pelosi an utter failure?

I'm not super interested in this discussion but I just look at how long she was the Democratic House leader and what happened during her leadership to the nation. I would heartily agree she was an effective manager of her caucus. But that isn't going to be what her legacy ends up being in time I believe.

Alefroth wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 6:00 pm I'd prefer rigorous annual physical, mental, and psychological evaluations for everyone in congress.

That's definitely an idea for a way forward but that's also potentially very subjective.

malchior wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 6:03 pm

Alefroth wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 6:00 pm I'd prefer rigorous annual physical, mental, and psychological evaluations for everyone in congress.

That's definitely an idea for a way forward but that's also potentially very subjective.

Not any more subjective than saying 20 years seems like a good enough amount of time.

Alefroth wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:38 pm I'm suggesting we wait until they are unfit to dare say they are unfit. Is that wrong?

Yes.

Alefroth wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 6:05 pm

malchior wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 6:03 pm

Alefroth wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 6:00 pm I'd prefer rigorous annual physical, mental, and psychological evaluations for everyone in congress.

That's definitely an idea for a way forward but that's also potentially very subjective.

Not any more subjective than saying 20 years seems like a good enough amount of time.

It doesn't have to be 20 years. That was just an example.The point is it is clear and defined as to what the outcome is. An age limit has the same merits.

Just to clarify, I firmly believe the science (and of course have also seen it anecdotally, as we all have) that indicates that people vary wildly when it comes to biological age vs chronological age. Plenty of people out there rocking it almost youthfully at 82, while others with the same age seem very old, decrepit, etc.

Great example is my Mom and Dad. Both alive amazingly, and the same age. One can't walk without a walker or cane, and can't walk for long or very far at all. Constantly CONSTANTLY going to one doctor or another...literally every week. Lots of arthritis all over, knees are shot, etc. My Dad at the same age, is able to work outside every single day, and at most two years ago (he was 81 I think?) my brother sent me a video of my Dad on top of a massive tree that had fallen in his year, and was jumping up and down on it...probably 6 ft off the ground. Foolish? Absolutely! But my point is my Mom back then would have had trouble even getting TO that tree in the yard which was maybe 75-100 ft from the door.

I was thinking about this the other day. What if we just said "no back-to-back terms"? It seems like a lot of the problem (well, aside from a public that doesn't pay enough attention to politics), is that it's almost always easier to just pull the trigger for the person that is already in the job. It takes some/all of the thought out of it. Oh, I remember why I was thinking about it! I hate, hate, HATE, that these people that we elect spend their last months/years in office campaigning. I don't vote for a president so that he can spend 25% of his first term campaigning (or, what, 60-70% for TFG?). I want them doing the job.

Though now that I think about it, they'd probably just spend that time supporting another candidate in a "I wash your back, you wash mine" relationship. Still, maybe it would have some positive effects.

Alefroth wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 4:19 pm

Kraken wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 3:30 pm

El Guapo wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 3:19 pm

Kraken wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 2:42 pm

Isgrimnur wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 1:52 pm Nancy Pelosi to run for reelection for her US House seat next year

<groan> You had a great career, Nancy, but it's time to retire.

I don't get why we would care about this. If she were trying to reclaim her speaker / leadership post, sure, that would be grating. But in terms of her continuing to be a representative for two more years? She's qualified, as far as I'm aware she's still fully sharp and cognitive, and it's a two year term...so I'm fine with it, but mainly I don't really care one way or the other.

The electorate is widely fed up with gerontocracy. The Biden/trump rematch that nobody wants, Moscow Mitch seizing up, Feinstein being almost on life support.... Of course, it will be up to her district to decide how fed up they are. I wonder if she'll even be primaried.

Then I guess the electorate won't re-elect her.

That's kinda what I just said...if the electorate is even given a choice. Will any other Democrat challenge her?

The back to back idea would introduce too much variability. Experience is useful. That's the usual argument against term limits and it makes sense. The trouble is that generally in the House and Senate the longer someone holds a seat the more entrenched they get. There is lots of evidence for this idea. Especially in "safe" seats. Incumbents simply don't lose very often.

Combine that with lifespan increasing as it did and we have people in their 50th year in office or more. Beyond not being the natural order it has produced the stagnation and corruption that are a hallmark of our current era of politics.

Kraken wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 6:31 pmThat's kinda what I just said...if the electorate is even given a choice. Will any other Democrat challenge her?

No. Mostly because it's practically impossible to win against someone as embedded as her. It'd be career suicide.

stessier wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:55 pm

Alefroth wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:50 pm

malchior wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 5:45 pm It's not only a matter of fitness. All of human history involved passing the baton to your children to manage their own affairs. Up until this narcisstic bunch of octogenarians.

How foolish is it to make decisions today based on all of human history? And to also think things have been just peachy up until this latest batch of old people.

First time reading a malchior post?

Cool. Care to add some value instead perhaps? I'm getting tired of people being petty and mean here.

An age limit isn't going to happen. In order for an age limit to happen, people who would be past that age limit would have to vote themselves out of power. And as others have said, age alone isn't the determining factor. Ben Franklin signed the Declaration at 70 and invented bifocals at 78. Madonna Buder finished an Ironman Triathalon at 82. Abbot invented the solar cooker at 99. There are thousands of other examples. Inventors, scientists, writers, athletes.

What I'd wish for would be term limits (and let them grandfather themselves in if it'll get it passed), plus cognitive testing one year before each but their final terms was up.

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 9:12 pm An age limit isn't going to happen. In order for an age limit to happen, people who would be past that age limit would have to vote themselves out of power.

I'm sure we could great-grandfather them in.

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 9:12 pm cognitive testing one year before each but their final terms was up.

Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.

Unagi wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 9:20 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 9:12 pm An age limit isn't going to happen. In order for an age limit to happen, people who would be past that age limit would have to vote themselves out of power.

I'm sure we could great-grandfather them in.

We'd have to do it for every member of the current congress, or I can promise you that someone would be sitting there with scratch paper and comparing just how many people would be aged out from each party and in what order - whichever is going to lose more would vote against it.

Unagi wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 9:20 pm

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Sep 08, 2023 9:12 pm An age limit isn't going to happen. In order for an age limit to happen, people who would be past that age limit would have to vote themselves out of power.

I'm sure we could great-grandfather them in.

That's quality right there.

Voters have to care enough to stop voting for old people for anything to happen. And then they can change the system at the ballot box.

Running for Congress is supposed to be enough work to discourage long term service. But it gets easier the longer you’re there in the modern age, not harder.

Campaign finance reform would trigger a lot of resignations. Another systemic problem created by Mitch McConnell.

Boomers are very controlling and refuse to give up power. We see that in the economy, and it’s no difference in Congress. But COVID life expectancy changes may end up changing that.

Pelosi has been the strongest and most effective woman in the House for decades, and she's still sharp.

And those who think terming her and McConnell out after 1 or 2 terms need to realize that not having politicians with that much power developed over time means someone else will get it.

Lobbyists.

And yeah, McConnell mostly sold out to the lobbyists with the rest of his party, but that's he and his party and character issues.

It's still that it needs to be elected politicians with the power, their greed is far less than those behind the scenes who can never be held accountable.

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

A quick internet search

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... s-while-o/



Pelosi worth in 2009 $21.7 million

https://thehill.com/policy/finance/9397 ... 2-percent/

Pelosi worth in 2023

https://coopwb.in/info/how-much-is-nancy-pelosi-worth/

Nancy Pelosi’s Estimated Net Worth today

Diving straight into the numbers, various reports peg Nancy Pelosi’s estimated net worth at around $120 million. However, some nuances come into play when valuing assets. For instance, based on real estate and stock valuations, her estimated net worth fluctuates between $43 million and a staggering $202 million.

Taking a trip down memory lane, in 2018, Pelosi’s net worth was approximately $114,662,521. This means that in a span of five years, her wealth witnessed an increase of about $5.3 million. The trajectory of her wealth, though consistent, has seen varied increments over the years.

If congress and their families required a blind trust, I might more easily accept their effectiveness with regard to legislating for the nation before before personal gain.

Couldn't find anything on her net worth in 1988. I'd really be curious to see the full spectrum of her tenure.

Pyperkub wrote: Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:53 am Pelosi has been the strongest and most effective woman in the House for decades, and she's still sharp.

Hey McConnell was also sharp, up until he got that concussion and is now part vegetable. Some kind of turtle-veggie hybrid actually. Feinsten - also super sharp, until she wasn't. At advanced age, it's not uncommon for people to lose faculties VERY quickly. I support age limits vs term limits for that reason. Simple biology. And sure, we might cut short a great, exceptional politician's career by a few years with that kind of policy, but will also avoid the obvious issues where you have a half brain dead, previously great politico being managed by their staff. Do we want a non-accountable staff making shadow votes instead of the people we elected?

Carpet_pissr wrote: Sun Sep 10, 2023 12:40 pm

Pyperkub wrote: Sun Sep 10, 2023 11:53 am Pelosi has been the strongest and most effective woman in the House for decades, and she's still sharp.

Hey McConnell was also sharp, up until he got that concussion and is now part vegetable. Some kind of turtle-veggie hybrid actually. Feinsten - also super sharp, until she wasn't. At advanced age, it's not uncommon for people to lose faculties VERY quickly. I support age limits vs term limits for that reason. Simple biology. And sure, we might cut short a great, exceptional politician's career by a few years with that kind of policy, but will also avoid the obvious issues where you have a half brain dead, previously great politico being managed by their staff. Do we want a non-accountable staff making shadow votes instead of the people we elected?

That's a big concern for me and Biden. 80 seems to be a magic number not to say that things will head south fast but that it happens enough to be a concern. If TFG had any redeeming qualities, it would be a concern for him as well.

I remember reading a sci fi short story as a kid where everyone got to be president. But only for 15 minutes selected at random.

This is why I am more in favor of cognitive testing over age limits. Cognitive testing can catch people who are slipping regardless of age.

Oh, sure. “Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.”

milo wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 1:32 am Oh, sure. “Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.”

too true


And, just as a tangent... Could anyone think of a more obvious set of 'linking words' for Trump to remember with no effort? I mean, he probably only really thinks about "Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV" in his normal thought pattern.

if you haven't seen....

I had not. Thanks! Nice Monday morning laugh.

Unagi wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:36 am

milo wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 1:32 am Oh, sure. “Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.”

too true


And, just as a tangent... Could anyone think of a more obvious set of 'linking words' for Trump to remember with no effort? I mean, he probably only really thinks about "Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV" in his normal thought pattern.

I'm pretty sure those were just the things in his immediate line of sight during the interview so...even easier.

This is the one I loved.

Brian wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:58 am

Unagi wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 8:36 am

milo wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 1:32 am Oh, sure. “Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.”

too true


And, just as a tangent... Could anyone think of a more obvious set of 'linking words' for Trump to remember with no effort? I mean, he probably only really thinks about "Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV" in his normal thought pattern.

I'm pretty sure those were just the things in his immediate line of sight during the interview so...even easier.

waaaait a minute.

Are you saying that he (at the time of the interview) couldn't remember what his orignal test list was? ...And he stared out at the crew filming him and thought up: "Person, Woman, Man, Camera, TV" on the spot...

I had never thought of that.

Brian wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 11:58 am I'm pretty sure those were just the things in his immediate line of sight during the interview so...even easier.

I had always assumed this was the case. I thought he even pointed in the general direction as he said them. But I don't care enough to rewatch the vid to see if I just made that up.

stessier wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 12:52 pm But I don't care enough to rewatch the vid to see if I just made that up.

you did.

You shoulda heard Mick Mulvany on CNBC this morning. He thought it was reasonable to hold have a government shutdown because Congress doesn't come to compromise any more. Examples of compromise he wanted to see were balancing the budget the way freedom caucus want to balance or impeaching President Biden. I'm glad I don't pay for cable any more. I will miss CNBC less and less as they give more and more air time to breath in that sort of drivel until you develop pneumonia.

LordMortis wrote: Mon Sep 11, 2023 4:07 pm Examples of compromise he wanted to see were balancing the budget the way freedom caucus want to balance or impeaching President Biden.

It's kind of like compromising with the IRS by paying your entire tax bill.