posted
I have never truely understood why politicians get such a long career in some states, we obviously dont want the kid with no experiance at all but old men are stubborn and are unaccepting of new ideas. Last I knew John McCain still had to have assistance in using the internet... this, this right here. He cant competently do what you are doing right now, and he is a United States senator. Doctors may serve past thier physical prime but you would never see an elderly surgeon opening someones chest, younger doctors would be better educated and think quicker under the stress of open-heart surgery than an older man with arthritis.
I am thankful for Sen. Byrd's service to our country, and am curious as to who will take such a worn in seat and what will change due to it.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Using uncommon words to call me a child does not refute the fact that older equals wiser is not a law, merely a decree from those who have attained power and do not wish to be challenged. How many proffesionals outside pollitics have peaked after the age of sixty? waited until they were classified as senior citizen to start a wildly successful company, or published thier first book to positive reviews and high sales after the age of seventy?
An accomplished man of 94 is simply going to do what he did when he was 74, despite what tools are at his disposal and the change of what his methods can do.
Age does not mean intelligent by default, and old age is the enemy of a healthy brain. Ignore that fact if you will, because I am just a mere brat whose fingers type away while my simple mind thinks about how pretty marbles are.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doctors may serve past thier physical prime but you would never see an elderly surgeon opening someones chest, younger doctors would be better educated and think quicker under the stress of open-heart surgery than an older man with arthritis.
Well, youth certainly doesn't stop one from making silly arguments, that's for sure. How on Earth did a question of reflexes and arthritis come into the question of whether someone who is old can be an elected official?
Sheesh, Achilles, it's really quite simple: age does not mean intelligent by default. Age likewise does not mean stupid or incompetent by default, either.
quote:How many proffesionals outside pollitics have peaked after the age of sixty? waited until they were classified as senior citizen to start a wildly successful company, or published thier first book to positive reviews and high sales after the age of seventy?
And this is pretty odd too, Achilles. Do you think politicians start their careers at that age?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't you go bringing empathy and possibility into this discussion either, you walker-jockey!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Age of our representatives in congress is actually a real big concern. Remember strom thurmond? For the last years of his representation, he was essentially senile, guided around by aides and given info on how to vote. We have legislators who take and hold positions and chairmanships and control of various industries and systems they don't understand in the least ("A series of tubes" "The holograms") just for political bargaining power. I don't know how representative Byrd was of that but I am pretty sure he should have retired by now.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, obviously politicians begin thier careers very early in life. I simply chafe under the idea that our country is still being led by former KKK members, senile old men, people guilty of vehicular man-slaughter and perfectly intelligent middle-aged men who are ashamed of thier own sexuality. Such people are not the best representives of current day America, they are in fact a motley crew of lackluster candidates whose true campaign strategy is to point into the past and how they really could have done much worse, and to make sure that the only people who oppose them are in fact worse than them. Point in fact, the only threat to Sen. McCain's position is J.D. Hayworth, who refuses to stop interacting and supporting openly racist organizations. Seniority in age or in experiance should not let them hold the office until they die, as a matter of fact having a majority of the senate on regular medications of various effects may very well endanger America, no official cause of death has been given for Sen. Byrd but citing (yes yes, I know) his old age he may have been on mind altering medications for any period of time until his death. Ninety-four years old, with a highly likely situation for heavy medication, how much longer would he have been allowed to hold office? the idea is quite asinine that a citizen who may not even be able to legally drive anymore would be at the helm of problems like censorship, internet laws and wether or not video games make kids kill people. History should always be in the background to be referenced, but in an age where we have found evidence of water on the Moon it is frightening to have our collective fate in the hands of men who dont even have the casual relationship with modern technology to know what a webcomic is without it being explained to them. On a daily basis these veteran politicians are relying on others to filter not the only the information that they find on through the internet, but to even choose what information is accessed simply because the incumbant politicain assumes that they can still do the job the way they did.
And Rivka, if your only response will be to ignore my arguments, why not ignore the entire thing and not respond at all?
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I simply chafe under the idea that our country is still being led by former KKK members, senile old men, people guilty of vehicular man-slaughter and perfectly intelligent middle-aged men who are ashamed of thier own sexuality.
You can chafe under the idea all you like, but it's not really very accurate. We're being led by the people we choose, by human beings. Some of `em are pretty crappy. Blaming it in whole or in part on age...well, that's a pretty odd prescription for the problem.
quote:...he may have been on mind altering medications for any period of time until his death.
Any elected official may be on mind altering medications right now. Constantly. In fact, it's a guarantee that there are hundreds of elected officials, right now this instant, across the country, who are on mind altering medications.
You know what lets them hold office until they die? Elections.
quote:History should always be in the background to be referenced, but in an age where we have found evidence of water on the Moon it is frightening to have our collective fate in the hands of men who dont even have the casual relationship with modern technology to know what a webcomic is without it being explained to them.
I'm more technically savvy than the 'average joe', under 30, and I am not even remotely frightened by being led by someone who doesn't know what a webcomic is. C'mon, Achilles, this age paranoia of yours is more than a little silly, because the reasons you offer up in support of it are so far consistently silly.
Blanket generalizations: bad. It's a pretty simple guideline. Some old people are stupid and living way in the past. Others aren't.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That just means that I don't have a vote. It doesn't mean that my opinion doesn't matter. I can, for instance, heavily sway the voting habits of people living in other states. And have. Also, whether or not your opinion is directly actionable in an electoral sense does not prevent it from mattering, else you could wave away anyone's commentary on a supreme court justice by saying that their opinion doesn't matter.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting how the opinions of a bunch of people that didn't live in California mattered in the Prop 8 vote, though. And that was about a law that didn't apply to their state. A senator can make decisions that apply to the whole country and yet we don't matter.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure, you can talk, but what you say or think doesn't matter.
I don't know how much they should matter, but surely the opinion of people and organizations outside of West Virginia should matter at least a little to who will and won't be Senator from that state. West Virginia is not, y'know, Hawaii, an island. It's surrounded by its neighbors, who have some reasonable interest in who is elected from that state. People in that state have some interest in who is elected to represent them and will deal with other state elected officials.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not opinions perse, but definatly gobs and gobs of Jesus cash. It still bugs me that prop H8 is just 1337 for hate.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
For the actual Senators, this is something I've thought about. I think several of our representatives from states not mine are abysmal examples of pond scum. However, I think that the people of those states have the right and, moreover, are actually CORRECT to elect the pond scum if that's who they really want. If the people in those states want to elect drooling morons, then they should elect their very favorite drooling morons.
I can certainly write how I think the various candidates are drooling morons, but no, the people in the other states don't get a say. It isn't their Senator. They can elect their own senators and hope they pick someone who is both what they want in a legislator and sufficiently compentent enough to get things done.
But if one state wants to elect a thug and another a moral trash heap, then clearly they can and should have that thug or trash heap as their representatives.
Think of it as a variation on states' rights. They do exist, and the most basic one is the only people whose opinions about Senators matter are the people who get to vote for them.
Kind of like how it's mildly interesting what Germany thinks of who we elect as President - although not necessarily for the reasons they might hope it's interesting - but it doesn't matter.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do know that US Senators make laws for the whole country, right? That a Senator from some idiot state who elects idiots can hold up, for example, unemployment benefits for people in my nice not idiot state.
Our President doesn't get to make laws in Germany.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry you can't understand the concepts behind my explanation. Maybe if you read it again.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Kind of like how it's mildly interesting what Germany thinks of who we elect as President - although not necessarily for the reasons they might hope it's interesting - but it doesn't matter.
Doesn't matter to what? The vote count? Well, that's certainly true. But that's not the only definition of 'matter', which is the point I think some folks are trying to make. In fact, no one is even trying to say an outsider's opinion should matter as much or even nearly as much as a voter's opinion. They're just rejecting the absolute statement that their opinion simply doesn't matter, that's all.
As for the subject change, well katharina, that is a pretty topical example of ways in which outsiders opinions can matter, isn't it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, you're missing the ENTIRE field of international relations. Everything every country does does impact other countries. It's so obvious I don't know why I'm saying it.
The same applies to state governments. Of course it matters. States are not bubbles. The policies and budgets and governments the states next to mine matter a lot.
I think your definition of "if you can't vote, you're opinion doesn't matter" is silly simple.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, people can talk, and there's all sorts of noise, but ultimately, if you don't legally get to vote on it, then your opinion doesn't matter.
Maybe the issue here is how I am using "matter".
It's the difference betweeen "I want you to listen to me" and "You MUST listen to me". Unless you legally have a vote, then all you have the power of persuasion and hope someone whose opinion gets the "MUST" stamp notices you.
It doesn't mean your words can't make a difference. It means you have to persuade and beg for them to make a difference.
When your opinion really matters, you don't have to beg for an audience. You have a right to affect the outcome, rather than request an extension of the privilege from those who do have the rights.
------
Of course, the flip side of it is that the responsibility for the result rests entirely on the people who got to vote. Everyone else may have banged their drums and shouted their opinions, but if they affected the outcome, it is because the people with the rights to vote in that election decided to let them (or else did not vote, which means they failed in their responsibilities).
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except it does matter. Just as a simple example, people outside of Arizona are reacting to Arizona's recent laws on illegal immigration. And, whether they are right or wrong to do so, they have the right to do so.
If a state consistently elects racists by a wide margin, I am going to treat the people from that state as largely racists. I'm also going to pressure my representatives to treat the people of that state and the state itself as supportive of racism. And it is my right to do so.
Places I don't have a vote in have the right to elect whomever they want without my direct interference, but I have the right to both attempt to indirectly influence who they vote for and to react as I deem appropriate to whom they choose to represent themselves.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the state next to mine starts to elect crazies, and they start spilling into and making a mess of my state, then I absolutely have the right to affect the outcome of their next election.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope, you don't have the right, unless you are a citizen of that state. You CAN, if granted the privilege, and you can be very persuasive and loud and eloquent in your requests, but you don't have the right.
---
You DO have the right to elect your own officials and charge them with some state-to-state negotiations, and you have some rights to sue under federal law. But you don't have the right to directly affect the outcome of their elections. Elect your own Senator.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When your opinion really matters, you don't have to beg for an audience. You have a right to affect the outcome, rather than request an extension of the privilege from those who do have the rights.
*shrug* I can agree with most of what you're saying, except that you're defining 'matter' in what seems to be a very narrow way.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can because there is nothing denying me the privilege to head on over to the offending state and start playing politics. Maybe it's not an explicit right, but there is nothing preventing or even discouraging me to do so.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a combination of several explicit rights: the right to interstate travel and the right to free speech.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
White Whale, we are not (here) talking about state senators, we are talking about US Senators. They make laws for the country not just their own states. The Senator from Idaho has as much impact on the people of Illinois as he does the people of Idaho.* I don't get to vote for him but he has as much direct impact on my life as the Senators I do get to vote for.
*generally speaking not including weird backroom deals and pork.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, If you are using "matter" to mean "can vote or directly dictate how others vote", then, yeah, you're right. But with any other definition of the word matter, I don't see how what you are saying makes much sense.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
White Whale, your argument would work to some extent for the people in other states whose opinion mattered for the Prop 8 vote.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How can people in the state directly dictate how others vote any more than people outside the state?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale: ah, okay. That's even more obvious. The point stands for both, though, I think.
But if your words make the slightest difference in the election, it will be because the people whose opinions truly matter granted you respect/brain space and took your words into account. Which is a privilege.
It is your right to speak. It is not your right to make voters listen, which means if they do, you have been granted a privilege. When the hurlyburly's done, the opinions of the individual voters are the only ones that matter.
quote:How can people in the state directly dictate how others vote any more than people outside the state?
When people in the state CAN do is vote in the election, and therefore affect the outcome of the election directly.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:How can people in the state directly dictate how others vote any more than people outside the state?
I'm not saying that they could. I'm saying that, by the only definition I can think of where what kat is saying makes sense, people who "matter" have to be able to direct affect the results of an election. Thus, they either can vote themselves or determine the votes of others. I'm not asserting that anyone can determine the votes of others.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever happens outside the election, no matter how large the sturm and drang, only the election itself counts. Everything else is noise.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat, if all you are trying to say is that people outside the state don't get to vote for the senator from a particular state, I don't think anyone is disputing that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Whatever happens outside the election, no matter how large the sturm and drang, only the election itself counts. Everything else is noise.
Great, and I can (and have) influenced people's votes in states not my own. I can easily do the same in this circumstance (if I have not already). So even by your own artificially constrained metric of how my opinion matters or does not matter, I can show how it matters, and you're still wrong.
Is that understandable for you?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
