1507
submitted 1 year ago by ZeroCool@feddit.ch to c/politics@lemmy.world

Over three-fourths of Americans think there should be a maximum age limit for elected officials, according to a CBS News/YouGov survey.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Vespair@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago

And yet we have minimum age requirements. Why does your bullshit argument about voter autonomy not apply there?

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why do you assume people like minimum age requirements either?

The Constitution is difficult to change. I'd get rid of the "natural born citizen" bit too.

[-] Vespair@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're right, America would totally be better if we let preteens and foreign assets hold major legislative seats, totally wise outlook you've got on the topic here 🤡

[-] kava@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

"Foreign assets"

So if somebody came at 5 years old, grew up their whole life in the US, was a citizen, and millions of Americans wanted to pick them as their president..

They shouldn't be accepted because they're a foreign agent?

In my opinion you're either a citizen or you're not. There should be no difference.

[-] HerbalGamer@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

It's kind of what they built the country on, didn't they?

That, and slavery of course. But that's a different discussion.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't think many people would vote for preteens or foreign assets.

Running a campaign does not mean you win, and if you're unlikely to win, you're unlikely to get enough support to run.

Also foreign-born Americans can be elected to the legislative branch. Ted Cruz is a notable example.

Might wanna know what you're talking about before calling someone a clown.

[-] mayonaise_met@feddit.nl 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Somebody said my name?

[-] Impassionata@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In my opinion, you're too naive to participate in this conversation constructively.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Well, your opinion doesn't matter that much, so that's fine.

[-] Impassionata@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I can't hear your opinion over the upvotes I'm getting for my main comment

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Might wanna recheck those upvotes big chief.

[-] Impassionata@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago
[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago
[-] Impassionata@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

here, have an upvote. that means you're doing a good job.

[-] Impassionata@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

you've never actually advanced to the level of writing beyond "say things, get applause," have you?

well let me tell you, it's harder to make controversial points, but that's the only real work.

otherwise, you're just speaking into a mirror

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You're the one who brought up upvotes, chief.

[-] Impassionata@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

yeah. because if you hit a controversial point well, you are still net up.

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

you’ve never actually advanced to the level of writing beyond “say things, get applause,” have you?

Lol

[-] Impassionata@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

your failure to understand is no longer my problem

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Cool beans man. I thought it was weird you'd double-comment within 3 minutes like that, so yeah, take a break for a bit.

[-] Impassionata@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

you're in here with me, take a break for a bit.

[-] Kalcifer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Out of curiosity, what is your justification for removing a natural born citizen clause?

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I don't believe that being a natural-born citizen adds any value to potential elected leaders in the modern era.

[-] Kalcifer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I understand that you don't think it is necessary, but I'm curious what your reasoning is, as to why?

[-] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Because it's not the 18th century any more, and people have access to various cultures across the planet.

The idea that only someone born in your country knows it well enough to lead it is, frankly, stupid.

[-] Kalcifer@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

My argument is based on principle; therefore, it would be in opposition to any such restriction whose purpose is to “ensure” the competency of the candidate.

this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
1507 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19096 readers
2995 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS