▲ 1131 ▼ they are going to get away with it too (lemmy.world) submitted 1 week ago by Karmanopoly@lemmy.world to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world 130 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] cynar@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (2 children) Term limits just push things to the unelected "advisors" and aids. An age limit would be a better option. I would push for 90% of life expectancy, which is 71 in the US. If you're over that age, you can't run again. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 week ago (2 children) I'd set it at the retirement age. Nobody over 65. Go spend time with your families ffs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] dangling_cat@piefed.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 week ago (3 children) What was that? Retirement age is now 100? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] cynar@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago 👍 Which is why I didn't say retirement age, it can be gamed. Life expectancy can be gamed too, but I would call it acceptable if they managed to raise it significantly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sel@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago No, no, it is 65 for our government if they want, everyone else is 100. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 point 1 week ago or 1000 in case of mitch. permalink fedilink source parent [–] cynar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago Retirement age can be gamed. Even worse, it's to the rich's benefit, and our cost. Life expectancy is harder to game in a way that hurts the plebs. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago I'd go for a net worth restriction. Anyone who is in the top 10% of the net worth of their constituents cannot run. Anyone who is in the top 1% of the net worth of their constituents is immediately replaced. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Oni_eyes@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 week ago (2 children) I'd set it at the retirement age. Nobody over 65. Go spend time with your families ffs. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] dangling_cat@piefed.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 week ago (3 children) What was that? Retirement age is now 100? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] cynar@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago 👍 Which is why I didn't say retirement age, it can be gamed. Life expectancy can be gamed too, but I would call it acceptable if they managed to raise it significantly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sel@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago No, no, it is 65 for our government if they want, everyone else is 100. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 point 1 week ago or 1000 in case of mitch. permalink fedilink source parent [–] cynar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago Retirement age can be gamed. Even worse, it's to the rich's benefit, and our cost. Life expectancy is harder to game in a way that hurts the plebs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dangling_cat@piefed.blahaj.zone 14 points 1 week ago (3 children) What was that? Retirement age is now 100? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] cynar@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago 👍 Which is why I didn't say retirement age, it can be gamed. Life expectancy can be gamed too, but I would call it acceptable if they managed to raise it significantly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] sel@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago No, no, it is 65 for our government if they want, everyone else is 100. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 point 1 week ago or 1000 in case of mitch. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cynar@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago 👍 Which is why I didn't say retirement age, it can be gamed. Life expectancy can be gamed too, but I would call it acceptable if they managed to raise it significantly. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sel@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago No, no, it is 65 for our government if they want, everyone else is 100. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 point 1 week ago or 1000 in case of mitch. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cynar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago Retirement age can be gamed. Even worse, it's to the rich's benefit, and our cost. Life expectancy is harder to game in a way that hurts the plebs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago I'd go for a net worth restriction. Anyone who is in the top 10% of the net worth of their constituents cannot run. Anyone who is in the top 1% of the net worth of their constituents is immediately replaced. permalink fedilink source parent
