Political So now what

Political discussions within

Hickey

Burn-barrel enthusiast
Supporting Member
That there should be a cap at 65 years for anyone trying to run for national office.
I'd be down for that. I'd like to say that some kind of mental evaluation after 65 could be instituted for a candidate, as many of us know of plenty of people aged 65 and much older who are plenty capable of getting the job done, but I can easily see that becoming a cluster. So 65 is fine with me.
 

Cody

Random Quote Generator
Supporting Member
Location
East Stabbington
At this point, I'm young enough to remember what my brain used to be capable of, but eventually even that will be forgotten and none of it is coming back. Judging by the rate my memory is failing me, I doubt I could even remember elementary algebra or basic Grammer by the time I'm 60 ha ha. Obviously lots of people stay sharp for a long time and I think Jack Josh is sharp as hell, but it seems to be more the exception than the rule.
 

Tebbsjeep

Well-Known Member
Location
Ogden
I think having different age groups in congress similar to how we have different parties would also help keep things more representative as a whole. New ideas/passion for change, new understanding of how the world/technology works, all mixed with the wisdom of human experience in the older generation. Each decade block (i.e. 20-30s etc.), could be a different sector to vote for with equal representation of each age group.

And lets be honest, mental exams for any and all government officials is a good idea.
 

Cody

Random Quote Generator
Supporting Member
Location
East Stabbington
I think having different age groups in congress similar to how we have different parties would also help keep things more representative as a whole. New ideas/passion for change, new understanding of how the world/technology works, all mixed with the wisdom of human experience in the older generation. Each decade block (i.e. 20-30s etc.), could be a different sector to vote for with equal representation of each age group.

And lets be honest, mental exams for any and all government officials is a good idea.
I totally agree, but often times "young blood" is seen as extreme and anti American because their experiences and opinions are different
 
Last edited:

Tebbsjeep

Well-Known Member
Location
Ogden
For me, the problem lies in that everyone thinks that their generation is the best/smartest/strongest generation. Personally I've encountered people from all ages that have both made me feel like Einstein, and have also shown how dumb I can be with some things. It's finding the middle ground that eludes most of us. It's very difficult.
 

Cody

Random Quote Generator
Supporting Member
Location
East Stabbington
For me, the problem lies in that everyone thinks that their generation is the best/smartest/strongest generation. Personally I've encountered people from all ages that have both made me feel like Einstein, and have also shown how dumb I can be with some things. It's finding the middle ground that eludes most of us. It's very difficult.
Well said.
 

jackjoh

Jack - KC6NAR
Supporting Member
Location
Riverton, UT
At this point, I'm young enough to remember what my brain used to be capable of, but eventually even that will be forgotten and none of it is coming back. Judging by the rate my memory is failing me, I doubt I could even remember elementary algebra or basic Grammer by the time I'm 60 ha ha. Obviously lots of people stay sharp for a long time and I think Jack Josh is sharp as hell, but it seems to be more the exception than the rule.
At 91 I think racing off road would be fun and easy and would still be competitive but it would have to be less than two hours. I think many of them are mentally capable but have been in office too long so something like 12 years in office and 70 years old. Ask some of the guys about my picking up trash when I was 82.
 

N-Smooth

Smooth Gang Founding Member
Location
UT
I have a good test based on these questions: "Do you know who the president is? Can you read? Can you walk up a set of stairs without falling down them? Can you have a conversation with leaders without pooping your pants? Can you remember what you stood for or said, last year, last week, yesterday? What's your position on snorkels?"
Do you call it car camping or “overlanding” 🤣
 

jackjoh

Jack - KC6NAR
Supporting Member
Location
Riverton, UT
This is worth a read.
  • Kevin McGary, President of Every Black Life Matters


    • 3 hours ago

    • 3 min read

Renewed "voter rights legislation" demand is systemic government voter disenfranchisement!​


One of the worst affronts to the collective dignity of a supposedly “free society” is the active undermining of the expression of free voices via the vote. Shockingly, otherwise reasonable

file.jpg
7d0df7_0d66a7be33ec4d15802d9410a4cedcec~mv2.webp


and rational Americans actually entertain irrational talking points that will disempower voters by disenfranchising most American citizens under the guise of new “voters’ rights.” Make no mistake, the newfangled “voters’ rights legislation” is specifically designed to utterly disempower, not empower and encourage voters’ rights!
New “voters’ rights legislation,” cynically named the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, is a scheme designed to deliver federally-prescribed political outcomes. The Act is expressly designed to assure the will and desires of American citizens are not freely expressed through the ballot box. Such legislation is regressive and dangerous to our democratic republic.
Here’s why. Currently, States have the sole authority to conduct and ensure the validity of their elections. The Act snatches away the States’ authority, giving ultimate unlimited governing power over the voting process to the Federal government. The Federal government commandeers oversight of when elections are conducted, where conducted, how ballots are delivered and collected, who gets ballots and what systems or infrastructure to use to tally the final vote counts. This is obviously a tremendous amount of power!
History confirms: Collecting and moving this amount of information coordination (hundreds of millions of data points in one to two days) is much more efficient when carried out at the State level. Why would the Federal government want to take over this behemoth 50-state project? Why are federal power groups willing to fight so hard (even by terminating the Senate’s filibuster rule) to get this done? The logical answer: They seek to wield more control over the outcomes of elections far into the future!
Evidently, the Federal government doesn’t want to ensure hearing the will and desires of voters that make a democratic republic, and they want to move toward outcomes that follow certain desired trends. The Act will enable the placement of unmanned ballot boxes and vote “harvesting” procedures, potentially fraudulent online or mailbox/mail-in systems, and permitting non-citizens to vote (thereby canceling the votes of citizens). The results of the Act’s power-grab, ironically, will guarantee voter disenfranchisement for all American citizen voters.
In the past, voter disenfranchisement usually meant any barriers that disproportionately prevented certain communities from expressing themselves via their vote. Often, people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would express outrage about Blacks being disenfranchised when seemingly onerous conditions, such as voter identity cards and the lack of convenient access to voting booths/stations, imposed unequal treatment of the Black community as compared to other communities. Today, for all intents and purposes, American citizens over the age of 18 who are not convicted felons can easily vote! Most (if not all) States offer free identification for citizens who don’t possess a driver’s license. Recycled old tropes about Blacks not being able to get access to IDs are untrue, racist and demeaning. In today’s world, you cannot survive without an ID. Last century’s specific voter disenfranchisement issues related to voter IDs are effectively gone.
Bizarrely, the John Lewis Act seeks to move voter disenfranchisement from specific to systemic. Instead of mitigating any remaining specific instances of voter disenfranchisement, certain power groups in the Federal government aim to implement systemic changes that will ultimately disenfranchise every American voter. This legislation will effectively allow votes made up of dead people, duplicate ballots, illegal/migrant voters (non-citizens), and people who have moved out of the jurisdiction. Since every illegal or fraudulent vote neutralizes every legal citizen vote, this Federal voting rights legislation that also encourages “ballot harvesting,” mail-in ballots, no citizenship or ID requirements, and reliance upon unreliable voting machines/infrastructure, the new laws will effectively disenfranchise all American citizens under the guise of “progress.” Can willful systemic disenfranchisement be any more obvious?
In a democratic republic, all votes matter. All citizen voters are disenfranchised when illegal votes are encouraged and counted (even if the Federal government is sponsoring it). Every Black Life Matters (EBLM) resolutely demands integrity and full transparency in our electoral processes.
Every legal vote and every voter matters to our ability to successfully move forward as a country. That’s why Every Black Life Matters stands against all fraud, cheating, and undermining of American voices at the ballot box. Therefore, we publicly denounce the deceptively-named John Lewis Voting Rights Act! This Act undermines the U.S. Constitution and invades the province of States’ authority. Please stand with us as we oppose all manner of systemic voter disenfranchisement. EBLM unequivocally demands the universal embrace of the highest levels of voter integrity in U.S. elections. Stand with us against this Act!
  • African-American voters
  • 2021 Virginia elections
  • Kevin McGary
  • Every Black Life Matters
  • Barack Obama
  • John Lewis Voting Rights Act
  • Stacey Abrams
  • Critical race theory
  • FBI parents
  • H.R. 5746
  • January 17 deadline
 
Top