Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionselections2yrs ago

Should politicians over 75 years of age have required to pass a mental competency test?

Countries that have mandatory retirements for politicians include Argentina (age 75), Brazil (75 for judges and prosecutors), Mexico (70 for judges and prosecutors) and Singapore (75 for members of parliament.)

572 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs2Y

Yes

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs2Y

Yes, and ban anyone over the age of 75 from running for office

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs2Y

Yes, and politicians of any age should be required to pass a mental competency test

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs2Y

No

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs2Y

No, mental competency is too subjective

 @9G8RG6KGreen Liberalanswered…1yr1Y

No. But Add term limits. And just like there is a minimum age to run as a candidate, there should be a maximum.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs2Y

No, our government needs experienced leaders

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs2Y

No, this discriminates against older politicians

 @ISIDEWITHasked…5mos5MO

Imagine a scenario where a highly skilled leader is forced to retire due to age. How would that affect society's progress?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…5mos5MO

Is there an age at which people should no longer make significant societal decisions? Why or why not?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…5mos5MO

What alternative measures could be taken to ensure that professionals remain competent in their roles without setting age limits?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…5mos5MO

How would you feel if your favorite public leader had to retire at a certain age, regardless of their abilities?

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...2yrs2Y

No, I would prefer term limits instead

 @ISIDEWITHasked…5mos5MO

Can you share a time when you noticed someone's abilities didn't match with societal expectations due to their age?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…5mos5MO

What are the pros and cons of having age limits for high-responsibility roles, like politicians or judges?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…5mos5MO

How does the concept of 'age equals wisdom' fit into the debate on mandatory retirements for certain professions?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…5mos5MO

In what ways might mandatory retirement ages impact the diversity and representation in politics or judiciary?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…5mos5MO

If you had the power, what criteria would you set for someone to remain in a professional role as they get older?

 @ISIDEWITHasked…5mos5MO

How can younger generations benefit from or be disadvantaged by mandatory retirement ages in leadership positions?

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1wk1W

Jon Stewart Begs Democrats To ‘Please Stop Trotting Out Chuck Schumer!'

Jon Stewart criticized Democrats for repeatedly using Chuck Schumer as their spokesperson against Trump, calling his performances ineffective and monotonous.Stewart mocked Schumer's response to Trump's trade war threats, particularly his simplistic explanation about Mexican imports like Corona beer and avocados.The former Daily Show host expressed frustration at Schumer's basic observation that "guacamole is made of avocados" as a response to complex trade policy issues.Stewart sarcastically highlighted the Democrats' poor strategic choice in selecting Schumer to counter Trump, whom he described as "one of the most savvy presidential media manipulators in history."The comedian ridiculed Schumer's appearance and presentation style, particularly mocking his use of reading glasses positioned low on his nose.Stewart's criticism centered on the Democratic leadership's judgment in repeatedly choosing an "uninteresting" and "monotone" spokesperson.The commentary addressed Trump's threats of tariffs against Canada and Mexico, though focused more on the Democratic response than the policy itself.Stewart used hyperbole to emphasize his point, stating that Schumer's speaking makes him "want to bomb Canada."The piece highlighted the perceived disconnect between Democratic messaging strategy and effective opposition to Trump's policies.Stewart's criticism suggested a broader frustration with Democratic leadership's media strategy and public presentation.

▲  4817 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…6 days6D

Gavin Newsom Defends Immigrants With $25 Million

Governor Newsom signed legislation allocating $50 million total to protect California's policies from Trump administration challenges and defend immigrants facing deportation, split evenly between the state's DOJ and legal defense groups.The funding comes as California anticipates renewed conflicts with Trump's administration, following over 100 legal actions against his first term policies on issues including climate, water, and immigration.Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas justified the funding by characterizing the Trump administration as "out-of-control" and threatening to Californians' constitutional rights.The signing occurred just after Newsom's Washington visit to secure federal disaster aid for January's devastating Los Angeles wildfires, which claimed more than two dozen lives.California recently enacted a separate $2.5 billion fire relief package, with expectations of federal reimbursement for disaster response costs.Republican lawmakers criticized the legal defense funding as a political distraction from wildfire recovery efforts, with State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones calling it a "slush fund."Critics raised concerns about the possibility of funds being used to defend immigrants with serious felony convictions, though Newsom indicated this wasn't the intended purpose.The legislation emerged from a special session Newsom called shortly after Trump's election in November, demonstrating California's proactive stance against anticipated federal challenges.During Trump's first term, California initiated more than 120 lawsuits against his administration, spending approximately $42 million on legal battles.Annual legal expenses fighting federal policies during Trump's first term ranged from $2 million to nearly $13 million per year.

▲  1120 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…4hrs4H

China Blacklists U.S. Companies In Trade War Escalation

China's blacklisting of PVH (Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger) and Illumina marks the first time American companies with major Chinese operations have been targeted on national security grounds, signaling an escalation in trade tensions.The blacklisting came in response to Trump's imposition of additional 10% tariffs on Chinese imports, alongside Beijing launching an antitrust probe into Google.A record 30% of American Chamber of Commerce member companies were considering or already moving operations out of China, according to a recent survey.China's "unreliable entity list," introduced in 2020, mirrors the US "entity list" and could result in fines, trade bans, and restrictions on staff movement for targeted companies.PVH, which derives 6% of revenue and 16% of pre-interest/tax income from China, was specifically targeted over alleged "unreasonable boycotting" of Xinjiang cotton.The blacklisting's implications remain unclear, leaving approximately 1,000 PVH employees in China uncertain about their future.China's Commerce Ministry has declined to specify potential sanctions, stating only that companies operating with integrity have "nothing to worry about."The move contradicts China's public stance on wanting more foreign investment, creating increased uncertainty for multinational companies operating in the country.The blacklisting strategy appears selective, with China typically avoiding targeting market leaders to minimize domestic employment impact.US companies were already struggling to navigate rising Beijing-Washington tensions before this latest escalation in trade conflicts.

▲  1311 replies