Politics

10176 readers

200 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.

Guidelines for submissions:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org

circularfish@beehaw.org

knokelmaat@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

305

A confused Dianne Feinstein tried to give a speech in the middle of a Senate hearing vote and was told to 'just say aye' instead (www.businessinsider.com)

submitted 1 year ago by trashhalo@beehaw.org to c/politics@beehaw.org

117 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Senator Dianne Feinstein appeared confused during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Thursday. When asked to vote on a proposal, Feinstein began giving a lengthy speech instead of simply saying "aye" or "nay" as requested. The committee chair, Senator Patty Murray, had to repeatedly tell Feinstein "just say aye" and remind her that it was time for a vote, not speeches. After some delay, Feinstein finally cast her vote. A spokesperson said Feinstein was preoccupied and did not realize a vote had been called. The incident raises further concerns about Feinstein's ability to serve at age 90, as she has made other recent mistakes and often relies on aides.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PaintedSnail@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think Kerrigor meant that requiring politicians retire at the age of retirement would cause a push for retirement age to get bumped higher, and that it would be better for the maximum age for a politician to be tied to the average life expectancy (e.g. no more than 10 years younger than the average life expectancy, or some such).

[–] Kerrigor@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yep precisely! Sorry, I phrased it poorly. But this is exactly what I meant. If politicians are required to resign at retirement age, it creates a perverse incentive for them to RAISE the retirement age - which would be bad.

If it is tied to life expectancy minus ten years, then it is based on data that adjusts automatically, and it's less about age itself, more about average life expectancy remaining.

[–] KrayZeeOne@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

All this talk about "life expectancy" tied to retirement. Am I the only one around here that's blue collar tradesman that's gonna die in there 60's? How is 67 a reasonable retirement age?

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

If it is tied to life expectancy minus ten years, then it is based on data that adjusts automatically, and it's less about age itself, more about average life expectancy remaining.

This would also incentivise politicians to try and increase average life expectancy, which is probably most easily accomplished with universal healthcare. So that would be a win as well