this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2025
362 points (99.5% liked)

politics

26173 readers
3825 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Republicans are grappling with public polls showing the public places more blame on them, rather than the Democrats, for the shutdown, even as they argue they have the moral high ground in the shutdown fight.

Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) and Republicans stress that they put no partisan poison pills in a GOP-crafted, House-passed stopgap to fund the government through Nov. 21. Democrats in the Senate have repeatedly blocked that bill as they demand that Republicans first negotiate with them on health care issues, particularly on enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies expiring at the end of the year.

Poll after poll finds that slightly more Americans think Republicans are to blame for the shutdown than who think Democrats are at fault.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 6 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

And for a mandated maximum age for politicians

[–] cdf12345@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I think term limits would take care of this without v being discriminatory. You can win an office once and a reelection once. It doesn’t matter if you either that office at 25 or 70.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 1 points 1 hour ago

How is age discriminatory? We don't debate the minimum age requirement, so what's so bad about an upper one?

I mean I do think someone younger than 35 could easily be a good president.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 1 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I'm not sure that would be a good idea because in the future, life expectancy could change. With advancement in medicine, there could be a time in the future when the average 80 year old is just as capable as the average 40 year old

[–] MajorasTerribleFate@lemmy.zip 6 points 20 hours ago

It could potentially be handled like how we (should) handle minimum wage laws, adjusting for lived reality every so often.

[–] Akasazh@feddit.nl 4 points 20 hours ago

Could be, but it's rather speculative to legislate on that in the current.

I think it's healthy for politics to have more youthful individuals in the mix. And I think it's also important that the elderly are protected from themselves (thinking about McConnell and Feinstein).

If there's a minimum age, because of competence, there should be a maximum. It can then always debated about suspending that or raising the age if it's medically appropriate. But if rather see people retire in good health and spending time with their grandchildren.