patrick.net

Let me get this straight. You like the possibility of having lots of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service

The problem isn't those overly tenured "Elected" officials. The problem is the quality of political opponents in their primaries before the election.
To just callously call "Un Fair!" and demand their removal just because how long they have been there, is foolish. To what end, to end up with AOC or Latoya What's her race, "Injected" into the seat, because the people in those districts, didn't trust the opposition in previous elections, they wont blindly support him in an election stemmed from political manipulation, just because of preconceived ageism? Those voters will sit it out, and the Commies or Rinos will win.

If you really want change, then get involved with your local party and help be the gatekeeper of the quality of candidates that runs in the primaries and elections. 90% of every Primary challenger in most Republican districts around the country. Are professional candidates, they are given money to run, and hype the voters into thinking there are alternatives. But they don't spend one thin cent on campaigning or trying to get elected. They don't do one single television spot, they don't say one single negative word about the incumbents or how their policy would be better. If they even outline a policy.

I'm all for cognitive and even IQ tests for all elected officials and even potential candidates. But I'm 100% against blindly removing effective leadership, that has no realistic challengers in their hometown. And just throw them out, because some pimple faced punk let some boomer child molester convince them that old people are all dumb as fuck and how brilliant the FOMO generation is and can do better.

Piss the fuck off with that stupid shit. I would take Thomas Sowell even in his 90's over 90% of anyone in Congress under the age of 35.

The difference in me and folks who believe it, is they have been brainwashed by the media that hates Trump. Trump is past what anyone would call his prime. Do you really want a political system that would have saddled us with Kamala Harris, because Trump was too old to run?

Really? Low IQ much?

Chuck Grassley was a horrible example to make your point, just a piss poor option, horrendously stupid.

Chuck Grassley would be exhibit number fucking one, I would hold up to defend experienced candidates.

He's been a solid warrior compared to Lindsey Graham, and he is no where near the monster that Schumer and Pelosi are.
In fact, I would bet that if he, Schumer and Nancy had to take a cognitive test, he would be the only one that passed it.

Grassley is just more proof of the quality of candidates that run to oppose him. You don't actually think Grassley's office is manipulating local and state elections to keep his seat like Democrats do, do you? Unlike Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi and the like who actually do. It's the election security and integrity that is the most important issue facing our election today. Don't let the commies confuse you into thinking it's about old farts.
Have an honest election we can all believe in, then let those experienced candidates speak for themselves, by their win or lose.

Who is anyone from districts on the other side of the country, to dictate to voters in Grassley's district who to vote for?

And if Pelosi and Schumer and the like are actually being elected by their voters, then more power to them, but there still at least should be a cognitive test.

Grassley has done more to expose the hypocrisy and lies against Trump and has unmasked the DOJ weaponization against Trump more than anyone in Congress or the Senate. Jim Jordan, nor Matt Goetz says a damn word until Chuck Grassley spoke up.

Don't believe me go back and watch the congressional hearings all through Biden's term. He was the first to break ranks.

I didn't highlight Grassley. He's highlighted because he is still serving.

I'm 100% for fair honest elections that is 100% uncompromised. If people want to elect an old fart, then let them. There is never a good reason to stop someone from running for office. If the people want him/her, then give it to them. But all candidates should have to pass a series of tests to get credentials to even run for office. Civics, Cognitive, and a rudimentary IQ test, they don't have to be Thomas Sowell, but they can't be AOC.

GNL says

I didn't highlight Grassley. He's highlighted because he is still serving.

I don't accept Wiki as an argument exhibit ever. When I look at Wiki, it's usually about small facts about a subject. I hardly ever read the supporting topic articles. I will check out Wiki, about age or places they lived, who they were married to, the dates active, and for locations, just mostly geographic information.
Everything else is just curated propaganda and misinformation.
Like posting a list of people who has served more than 36 years, without providing context on any of them, their accomplishment and value, or in most cases, their deceit and fraud that kept them there. The bad ones were bad on day one, and stayed their because of the grifting skills they brought in 35 years ago. They didn't just figure out how to be villains on their 65th birthday.
Why +36 years, why not a filter for term numbers served?
It's a longevity page but Wiki want's to condition you that only 36 is a bad number. Pay no attention to the sophomore commies, Muslims, and syndicated gangsters.

I don't think anyone over 80 should be in office. "Wisdom" is useless after a while. Congress or executive branch you are a representative. Trump is unique having a younger kid, not grandkid. That's an exception, not the rule. My mom is educated and has a masters, to be blunt she's not smart.

I'd say around 65-70 years people start losing it. They're out of touch with modern business and things going on. I don't want to hear about Warren Buffet. He's a set and forget investor and makes a couple moves a year. All his early money is being compounded at this point. Not some genius. Math.

It's not about Wiki either. We literally just witnessed Joe Biden for 4 years as he turned 80. Until Trump goes I don't think you should ever hit the age of 80 in office. He should be the last one.

Much of this aging in politicians is the symptom of the Deep State achieving captive brand names then preserving them as expensive manufactured media objects and influencers by refusing to release them from Satan's treadmill. Aside from the occasional perverted orgy with blood drugs and human sacrifices, they don't even really get a chance much to 'enjoy' their corrupt wealth (most of which will be zipped back to the mother ship, anyway, upon their demise). Of course, we see select figures appearing suddenly different and younger as avatars to preserve the brand names and accumulated influences (keeping count of Nancy Pelosis is a Woo sport). What happened to the originals is likely death as per the fine print of the blood contract.

Also, they work under constant threat to themselves, their families and the various blackmails that hold them. Mitch the Turtle has been physically hosed at least twice in the last couple of years.

Tenpoundbass says

The difference in me and folks who believe it, is they have been brainwashed by the media that hates Trump. Trump is past what anyone would call his prime. Do you really want a political system that would have saddled us with Kamala Harris, because Trump was too old to run?

Trump is term limited. Term limits are not about age, they are about politicians being so firmly entrenched that nobody can afford to run against them and the politician is loyal only to donors. Term limits would not stop an older retired businessman from running.