Senator John Kennedy froze and then properly zoned out—forcing Fox to cut the interview short.
licks lips like lizard
Edit:
deleted by creator
Damn, getting freaky on air, not a good look.
I will forever associate Foghorn Leghorn with reading about strap-ons, LOL.
They cut the video right before he started blinking horizontally.
That’s insane to me that the Fox News host tried to pretend it was an issue with the mic. It’s so clear the mic was working fine, what the fuck. This is the kind of obvious propaganda that I’d expect from North Korea
Fox News is way better and more sophisticated as a propaganda machine than whatever NK has.
It’s one thing to brain wash people that have no access to education or outside sources it’s a completely different level to do it in a western country.
running should only be allowed at an age less than that of retirement, and at federal minimum wage. want to fix issues for working class and elderly? Fix them while you’re in office while you are becoming too old to run again. Get the fucking zombies out of DC.
the minnimum wage thing only means that the people that go up for the job are the corrupt bastards cutting favors and deals.
yeah. not unlike the current era.
there are not-corrupt senators. There wouldn’t be if they couldn’t afford to live.
Sounds like a problem with minimum wage then
there is a problem with minimum wage, yes.
but you’re solution isn’t a solution. it will lead to the exact opposite of what you want. even more so than now.
Not if we start hanging those who take bribes. In fact, I’d argue that the reason for most of what’s happening right now is that politicians and the rich are not at all scared of being dragged out of their homes by an angry mob and hanged for their crimes against humanity. You can’t craft perfect anti-corruption laws. Making them fear retribution from the people would work better than any fine or potential jail term.
Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité!
Or … an example is made out of the corrupt ones, and laws change to ensure things improve.
Yes. We should have anti-corruption laws being reliably forced, and have anti-corruption laws strengthened.
that won’t happen if all the good ones leave because they can’t afford to live in DC.
I used to think an upper age limit for serving in government was agist and would mean a large chunk of the population without representation by their peers. I worried how poorly they might be treated without representation.
But I don’t think it could be any worse than they’re treated with how poorly their peers are doing currently.
The weird part is 73 isn’t really all that old for some of these fuckers…
Kennedy isn’t even in the top 20. Fully 1/5th of the Senate is older than 73(!)
Iowa - Chuck Grassley - 91
Kentucky - Mitch McConnell - 83
Vermont - Bernie Sanders - 83
Idaho - Jim Risch - 82
Maine - Angus King - 81
Illinois - Dick Durbin - 80
Connecticut - Richard Blumenthal - 79
Massachusetts - Ed Markey - 79
New Hampshire - Jeanne Shaheen - 78
Hawaii - Mazie Hirono - 77
Massachusetts - Elizabeth Warren - 76
Oregon - Ron Wyden - 76
Rhode Island - Jack Reed - 75
Arkansas - John Boozman 74
Idaho - Mike Crapo - 74
Mississippi - Roger Wicker - 74
Nebraska - Deb Fischer - 74
New York - Chuck Schumer - 74
Washington - Patty Murray - 74
West Virginia - Jim Justice - 74
Colorado - John Hickenlooper - 73
Louisiana - John Kennedy - 73
Tennessee - Marsha Blackburn - 73
Texas - John Cornyn - 73
Wyoming - John Barraso - 73I have yet to meet someone in their eighties that isn’t mentally slipping. I have certainly never met someone in their 90’s that wasn’t a shadow of their former self.
Term limits would be a great starting point.
I work with elderly people and have known quite a few that were sharp as ever well into their eighties, but when their minds go it happens extremely quickly. At the very least there needs to be mandatory cognitive tests to run and serve after a certain age.
I’ve known people in that age that are mentally intact. There’s been a few celebrities that seem intact even into their 90s like Dick Van Dyke or Betty White. There was a guy at worked I only communicated with by text and assumed he was my age as we worked on an issue. Turned out he was 84. It was announced that he was leaving and I assumed he was going to retire, but no, he got a job elsewhere for a raise…
Certainly that video featured a man far more deteriorated than most anyone I’ve known in their 70s.
Problem is mostly the voters voting for a letter (R or D) and frequently not even paying attention to the specific person.
I tend to forget Bernie’s age.
Dolla dolla bill
If an upper limit is ageist, then so is a lower limit. But you wouldn’t think that having a 14 yo in office is a prudent thing. You probably never balked at the 30 yo limit for senate.
Those are very different things, though. I’d be okay with lowering the age limit for things, depending on the age we are talking about. Definitely would want people past the PFC stage (around 25).
They’re not different things though. The only difference between one arbitrarily established limit and the other is that you think it’s okay to shit on younger people.
They’re both extremely arbitrary limits based on some expectation that a 29yo is unable to be a reasoning, empathic human being but a 30yo can. It’s not even based on medical science. It’s based on a cultural belief that old people are somehow wiser and more experienced.
Oh, and since you brought up the development of the prefrontal cortex, the human brain begins to show signs of deterioration as early as the thirties. with cognitive declines related to aging becoming pronounced and obvious around the sixties. so fuck off with that.
a kind, empathetic and compassionate 20 year old is going to be a better congress person than a 50 year old whose not.
Oh, and by the way, a person born in 1945… half of their experience predates the modern world, and the quality of one’s experience is far more important than the extent of that experience. (for reference, such a person would be 80 years today, and would have been 46 when the first webpage went live. they would have been 58 when MySpace went live.)
the majority of their experience applies to a world that no longer exists. In every way relevant to modern governance, their preconceptions and understanding of the world is- generally- a world that is gone.
This is why so many of them believe that young families can afford a house on a single income if they just went and got a fucking job. Because they could and did.
There are exceptions to this, so don’t even bother listing them. I don’t care. Because any hard limit you set is not going to fucking care. and all of that brings us back to… both limits are either aegist, or not aegist.
I don’t care if it is aegist. There’s good reasons to have both limitations.
And lets be clear, you’re worried about a 24 yo going off and starting a war because their brain is underdeveloped, but ignoring that a person with dementia is a paranoid fucker, and makes that 24yo look positively saintly.
Whoa. I think there is some amount of wisdom and experience people acquire and giving them until 25 to get that PFC thing going makes some sense.
I also said elsewhere in this thread that I think cognitive tests would be reasonable.
I don’t think lower age limits and upper age limits are the same thing at all. I suppose if people want to put it to voters, people could work on updating the Constitution to lower age limits to 20 or whatever for Senate, House and the WH and then let voters decide. I just don’t think it’s the main concern (or even a real concern at all) when it comes to our broken system, although I know it’s quite fashionable to blame older people for all the problems…I’d say the problem is making money = free speech and allowing legal bribery.
Having younger people being bribed vs. older people and having term limits on those younger people is supposedly going to accomplish something, but I’m not really sure what.
Having younger people being bribed vs. older people and having term limits on those younger people is supposedly going to accomplish something, but I’m not really sure what.
age has nothing to do with being bribed. that’s a distraction.
As for wisdom, age has little to do with that, too.
do you really want me to list all the fucking stupid, unwise, and vile policies being pushed by mostly-old-people, who’ve stopped giving a fuck about their legacy because they already got theirs and pulled the ladder up?
Edit: Again: the only functional difference is that you think it’s appropriate to shit on younger people. That’s it. Every medical justification you use to do so… can be applied to anyone over 30, and especially anyone over 60. Any justification about “experience” can be ignored since most of that doesn’t even apply to the modern world.
You act as if they would suddenly lose representation. Which is not true any more than anyone under 30 is not already represented.
There is no legitimate argument you can make that justifies one but not the other. None.
The problem isn’t old people in office. I’ve known a lot of 80 year olds who are still with it mentally, and while they are slower physically they make up for it with their experience and wisdom.
But the problem is that not all older people are like this, so it’s generally up to the politician themselves to decide when they’re too old for it, and many of these people have egos which might prevent them from stepping back, ever. Combine this with the fact that the vast majority of seats are safe for one party or the other, and candidates are discouraged from running against incumbents in primaries, and someone who wins a Congressional seat at 40 or 50 can keep it for 30 (even 40) years, without having to face any meaningful opposition.
So, maybe we shouldn’t have an upper age limit. However, we should take the stigma away from having a primary challenge. Every Federal election should have a meaningful primary. Does an 80 year old want to keep his seat? They should have to debate someone half their age, and perform well, to keep it. Nothing should be taken for granted.
I like the idea of primaries. As to debates, though - the way they are conducted (in the United States anyway) seems to be very problematic - comes down to quips and comebacks, talking over one another, going over allotted time, not really answering the questions and using prepared sound bites, and trying to go viral, all while lots and lots of logical fallacies are employed, and a populace that judges on the most arbitrary aspects of all this hot mess, such as who appeared to dominate or came off “strong”, etc.
I wonder if there is some other way(s) to have candidates express their platforms during primaries. I honestly don’t have a great answer for this. I suppose it still comes back to a rather tuned-out and generally clueless populace that will decide things largely based on “vibes” anyway…
I honestly don’t have a great answer for this.
Town halls work. Speeches, work. meeting with constituents in any of a dozen formats… works. hell, even an AMA somewhere.
Personally, we should replace debates with MarioKart64 competitions.
The problem isn’t old people in office. I’ve known a lot of 80 year olds who are still with it mentally, and while they are slower physically they make up for it with their experience and wisdom.
And I’ve known a lot of very wise 12 yo’s in my time. Should we start letting 12yo’s run for office? what about 22 yo’s? what about a 32 yo president?
for someone whose 80, over half of their experience does not apply to the world we currently live in, anyway.
But half of their experience does, and the other half does give them context. (I would personally like it if more people in office today could remember what it was like to have fo fight in a war against fascists.) If they can offer a better vision than other candidates, and their voters are fully informed about their choices, I have no problem if voters send them back.
The problem comes when districts are manipulated to the point where the general election isn’t competitive, and primaries against incumbents are also discouraged. That guarantees that if someone wins an election once, they can hold on to the seat as long as they want to, well past the point where they are relevant, because they will never have to face a contested election again. That’s the real problem.
The context the irrelevant stuff offers…
…Does it tell them millennials are lazy because they can’t afford to have a family and own a house on a single income?
(Yes it does.)
…Does it tell them that being LGBTQ+ is wrong, immoral, and they should not have equal rights?
(Yes. It does)
…Has the experience of fighting fascists in a war stopped them from being fascist, or from supporting genocide?
(No. It does not.)
Now who’s stereotyping based on age?
You can’t assume that everyone who is 80+ holds these views, but if that person wants to run for office and represent you, then you absolutely have the right to ask them, and withhold your vote if they don’t answer to your liking.
The problem is that there are no alternatives. That person can be blatant in their suckitude, and you have no other option, within the party or outside of it. People like this keep getting elected because the system is stacked towards incumbency. Once you get the gig in a safe district, it is basically a life appointment. It was never meant to be that way.
You can’t assume that everyone who is 80+ holds these views, but if that person wants to run for office and represent you, then you absolutely have the right to ask them, and withhold your vote if they don’t answer to your liking.
Did I say that? You are putting words into my mouth.
They are, however common views, and serve as an excellent example of how that “context” isn’t always a good thing.
If you’re gonna sit there and say anyone under x age is immature - and that’s exactly what you’re saying- then I get to say anyone over y age is decrepit.
And i think you understand that point. It doesn’t matter if it’s universally true- it’s true enough, on both sides the issue.
It’s fine to post an upper limit because, surprise surprise, time marches on and everyone will(hopefully) grow old. You’re not gunna blow up your own retirement plan but you might pull that ladder up behind you.
The elderly have proven time and time again that basically none of them can do their jobs properly, and many of them should probably be in at least assisted living and not running the country.
How many Republican Senators does it take to change a light bulb? Zero. Trump says he changed it and they all clap in the dark.
gonna fix that for you…
how many Republican Senators does it take to change a light bulb?
Just one. But Trump has told them he already changed it and they applaud him in the dark.
deleted by creator
Nope. I answered the question- just one- but that they won’t because they believe trump took care of it. (IMO it’s more damning that way.)
The host knows this is a video right? We can see the senator’s lips not moving. It’s not an issue with the mic 🤣
We call that “pulling a Mitch”
“mitching off”
Kennedy: I’m sure Jesus loves him, but …
Jesus: STFU *hits mute*
Keep my name out your mouth. - Jesus
I hate this guy so fucking much
Hahahahaha Jesus made a direct editorial on that comment of his. “That’s about enough of that from you.” Sizzle “Bwhah? Who’s making toast?”
He literally froze up when he got caught in the Christan Nationalist logical trap.
Literally got stuck in the loop when his lips said, “I’m sure Jesus loves them, but everybody else…”
The topic they were discussing was Trump’s crackdown on sanctuary cities.
I knew it wasn’t Bitch McConnell because he’s like 143 years old.
Reminds me of the interview where he learned that you don’t need to swear on a bible. It broke his head. His jaw was agape while he struggled with that news. That was a while ago and this moron is still in congress. Absolutely mind boggling that people like him hold as much leverage as they do over people’s well-being.
I’m not saying I could run the ball to the hoop, but I know there are more suitable people out there.
Reminds me of the interview where he learned that you don’t need to swear on a bible. It broke his head. His jaw was agape while he struggled with that news.
Do you have a link? I’d like to see that.
There are still just a whole lot of dumbasses that think America - a secular nation - was designed to be, and is, a xtian nation. This gomer is just one of them.
One of my favorite things to ask one of these types is to tell me where their little book club - or the protagonist of that book club - is mentioned in the Constitution. I’ve seen multiple cases of them shorting out over this. Most of them just flat refuse to believe me. Of course. I tell them to “do their own research” on the matter. 🤣
I think this is what they’re talking about, it wasn’t the same guy.
Holy shit, I agree with one of the first comments, “Flagging this video for depicting a murder”.
JFC - “I know DAhnawld truhmp did it”.
And oh, that attempt at the “Merry Christmas” dig at the end. Real sick burn, dude. FFS, these people. They use a fucking holiday as a way to really stick it to others, just like Jesus would have done.
I should have come armed with a link. My bad. I’ll see if I can dig it up at some point. It’s so awkward you nearly feel bad for him. His whole world looked like it was crashing down around him.
I’d be for a cognitive exam. Ideally screening out various personality disorders, too.
But this thread is riddled with the usual ageist tropes and stuff about term limits. None of which will fix anything about our broken system.
Having some hard-coded age put into our legal system is bound to end badly. First of all, what is considered the typical years of health span I expect to change, most especially for the higher class (even if America’s health advances stall out thanks to the Republicans, other countries will continue forward and the upper echelons will definitely have access to such care). Secondly, even if it doesn’t, the typical years of health span vary wildly person to person. Telling someone at 73 they are too old to do the job, apropos of nothing else but the number of times they have been around the sun? That’s just plain stupid and it should be up to the voters to decide that.
Fuck no… Just because the rich killed a bunch of people and hoarded all of the medicine for themselves does not mean because they live longer they should be in charge.
I don’t think anyone would necessarily be hoarding anything; I’m just pointing out that health spans are likely to change as things advance. Maybe the average American might lag a bit behind the top 10% or so, but I very much doubt that these people will be aging the same way that people age now or ten years ago.
Setting some hard-coded thing now will be hard to change later to adapt with the times.
Every one of those aholes that want to run for office should take a basic science exam.
When there are legislators getting all het up about chem trails I know we’re going down the drain.
I’d get behind this 100%. Maybe throw in some screening for things like the dark triad and a basic test on critical thinking as well.
Well there’s age limits v. term limits.
I think term limits are definitely reasonable, regardless of age. We don’t need one person in a specific government role indefinitely.
Age limits, I’m kind of inclined to agree that would be hard to pin down. Frankly 73 is a bit young in my experience to be as far gone as John Kennedy seemed to be. Certainly it drops off and drops off suddenly at some point for people, but you do have people into their 90s with their cognition intact. Bernie Sanders is in his 80s and he seems mentally still there.
I’ve just never seen a very compelling case for term limits. I don’t think they’ll fix anything and in my anecdotal experience, the most prominent supporters tend to be rightwing cranks, so it makes me all the more suspect of the idea.
It’s one of those things that might sound really good to say, especially when someone has just had it up to here with the outcomes of legalized bribery and a corrupt government in the hands of incompetents and radicalized right wingers.
And yeah, when it comes to things like healthspan, I am not a fan at all of trying to apply some upper bound on age, especially when we may be poised on a revolution in things related to aging. Our government is already famously slow in catching up to other developments, this would be yet another where we are ushering people out of job long before it makes sense…
the most prominent supporters tend to be rightwing cranks,
Right now, the most ardent term limit hopes are against Trump. I also see people here all the time clamoring for Congressional term limits, either to get some of the GOP out or to make more room for progressive candidates on the Democrat side. Without term limits things can get too stagnant.
Even if people get to be as perfectly healthy at 90 as they were at 30, without term limits you could have some pretty bad situations with the same politicians in the same offices for decades and decades. Even with term limits there’s plenty of political positions across the municipal, district, state, federal levels to move between to build a very long and useful political career.
The problem is that as people age cognitive decline can be rapid. You elect somebody at 70 with no symptoms for a 6 year term. By 73 you get this type of issue.
A cognitive test would only work if it was administered yearly. If they show signs of cognitive decline they are immediately relieved of duties. You’d have to set up an independent body of physicians to administer the test and have the physician chosen at random to prevent shenanigans. The rich and powerful would still find a way to rig the system.
Or you can just set rules to prevent the issue.
64 is the oldest anyone can run for office and 70 is mandatory retirement age for all positions in government service. Yes some people still have a lot of life left in them at that age They can do something else.
As we’ve seen over and over again one dement old person in a position of power can cause pain and suffering or even the loss of life to millions.
I have a friend who retired from government service at 58 after 35 years. He then started his own business now at 79 it’s large and prosperous. Just because he “retired” doesn’t mean he stopped being of value to society. Hell his business has more impact now that he ever did in his government job.
Unfortunately old age is starting to catch up with him. He had a mild stroke last year and his brain isn’t what it used to be.
