Jump to content

So Feinstein is completely senile


Gil Bang
 Share

Recommended Posts

She gotta go.  And she's needed to go for some time.  Anyone familiar with dementia has seen that the concealment, efforts of staff, etc. have bought her more time than she should have taken.  She needs to step down with dignity.  It's already too late, but better late than never.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Why did they let her run for 2018?  Unless it was knowing that she may have to step down during her term, but that was just 2 years ago so it was already time then. It’s cruel to her, whether she realizes it or not. 

Because the Democrats in charge are all old as fuck, just like Feinstein. It's a real problem.

https://newrepublic.com/article/160520/democrats-old?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=EB_TNR&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1607633991

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Why did they let her run for 2018?  Unless it was knowing that she may have to step down during her term, but that was just 2 years ago so it was already time then. It’s cruel to her, whether she realizes it or not. 

How do you stop her from running?  

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Neonmoon said:

Age limits are needed. I'm sorry but anyone over 80 does not need to be making decisions that affect other people. 

 

I try not to play the age card that often, but this here is a clear case of someone staying WAY past the time they should have. Newsom is going to have a pretty busy 2021 and so many new friends will be showing up on his doorstep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Age limits are needed. I'm sorry but anyone over 80 does not need to be making decisions that affect other people. 

 

Agreed.  The cognitive decline I've seen in my parents past age 70 has been pretty stark.  My dad just turned 80 and can barely take care of himself.  My mom is 76 and not much better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

Age limits are needed. I'm sorry but anyone over 80 does not need to be making decisions that affect other people. 

 

I think a combination of term limits (12 years in House or Senate) and a ceiling of you cant be older than 60 when running for office would go a long way in efforts to unfuck DC. These goddamn geriatrics have an outdated world view shaped decades ago. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Age limits are needed. I'm sorry but anyone over 80 does not need to be making decisions that affect other people. 

 

Yep.  Article even goes in on how fucking bad it was for people like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd.

Chuck Grassley and Richard Selby ain't all there anymore, either.  At least Pat Roberts and Lamar Alexander knew when to go. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Yep.  Article even goes in on how fucking bad it was for people like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd.

Chuck Grassley and Richard Selby ain't all there anymore, either.  At least Pat Roberts and Lamar Alexander knew when to go. 

One glaring problem on the Hill is that the system of seniority for committee chairs encourages people to stay on well past retirement age.

 

  • Hook 'Em 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Yep.  Article even goes in on how fucking bad it was for people like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd.

Chuck Grassley and Richard Selby ain't all there anymore, either.  At least Pat Roberts and Lamar Alexander knew when to go. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

She is a perfect example of the utterly limp weakness that is the Democratic Party.

Indeed. She has been a horrible Senator for years yet she never got primaried and just continued on.

But I guess that was just my ageism and sexism talking.

I mean it is one thing to have 80 year olds leading the country, it is another when they are also career failures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

 

 

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Our party is doomed. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of 80 year olds that are cognitively with it.  In fact we're about to have one as President in about 3 years.  

However, she's closer to 88, having serious mental faculty issues, and has been a shitty public servant for the better part of a quarter century.  

Diane has already left the table, grabbed the hostess, and wants to order for the entire table as she's getting ready to leave the restaurant that she doesn't know the name of.

Edited by Lobo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

There are plenty of 80 year olds that are cognitively with it.  In fact we're about to have one as President in about 3 years.  

However, she's closer to 88, having serious mental faculty issues, and has been a shitty public servant for the better part of a quarter century.  

Diane has already left the table, grabbed the hostess, and wants to order for the entire table as she's getting ready to leave the restaurant that she doesn't know the name of.

I'll take Joe as POTUS in a heartbeat.

But I'd also be fine with a fucking law that said no federal office after the age of 80.  Sure, there are some folks who are whip-smart and running marathons at 96.  But the odds are way against that.  For every genius marathoner, there are 50 more living off of Ensure shakes and shitting themselves 12 times a day.  And we all know which ones we'll end up having leading us.....

EnynbfyVkAAZPcE.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I'll take Joe as POTUS in a heartbeat.

But I'd also be fine with a fucking law that said no federal office after the age of 80.  Sure, there are some folks who are whip-smart and running marathons at 96.  But the odds are way against that.  For every genius marathoner, there are 50 more living off of Ensure shakes and shitting themselves 12 times a day.  And we all know which ones we'll end up having leading us.....

There's about 275 million americans under the age of 65. There's gotta be some qualified candidates in that pool. You may still be whip smart at the age of 80, but you were probably also whip smart at the age of 30 and not eligible to be president. Running  at the age of 65 would put you just shy of 70 at the end of your term which is plenty goddamn old. Move along and let others who will have to live with the consequences of decisions contribute.

We've had two presidents in their 70's (Trump and Reagan) and they both exhibited significant mental deficiencies. (yeah yeah eisenhower had just turned 70 at the close of his term). I find Biden's age and mental faculties to be concerning as well. I voted for him because of the alternative, but there is no way he is as sharp now as he was in his prime. Why the fuck should we have to choose between two fossils. We're 0 for 2, and my guess is we'll be 0 for 3 by the end of Biden's time in office. We need more fresh blood in the DC, not less. Its bullshit.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Js1 said:

I'd say those rumors of her stepping down pre-2024 are rooted in some basis of truth.

I would say that she will step down in 2021, but after the Georgia election.

I have been discussing this since her adoration for Lindsay Graham got in the way of her duties during/after some hearing back in September/October. (Maybe I'm senile.)

She should have been tossed when she traded stocks on inside information and was caught this past year along with 2 or 3 Republicans. Everyone should be tossed who gets busted for that. Ethics have to mean something in Washington, right?

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not all that comfortable with some of the rhetoric and comments surrounding this deal but something must be done.

This whole deal makes me incredibly sad. I have to hope someone that cares for her will help her leave gracefully. I also hate that one of her colleagues feels the situation is so dire that they had to leak this to the press to force the issue.
It’s all just bad.

Whatever she is now - corporate neoliberal technocrat whateverthefuck - she was absolutely a feminist pioneer and as a woman of a certain age, I have admired her for a long time.

But that legacy cannot allow her to be allowed to continue to hold her position now.

And please don’t lump RBG in this bucket. Physical deterioration is bad but RBG died with her remarkable mind intact. It starts bordering on ableist when we start disqualifying people because of chronic illnesses or physical infirmities.

I am not in favor of term limits but I am in favor of a maximum age. I also think everyone in the House, Senate, and Executive should be required to undergo a cognitive evaluation every year and the entire results should be made available to the public. Voters should know if the candidates the are asked to vote for are compromised mentally. Yes, it’s a removal of a piece of the privacy but you forfeit that when you want to run for national office. I won’t go so far as to say that their physical exams should be made public.

It’s just an incredibly sad thing and I don’t blame Senator Feinstein. I blame the people around her that are enabling her and covering for her.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not an ageist, I’m just a person who has seen many people reach 70 and turn batshit crazy. There’s a reason why many states make you renew your drivers license in person over a certain age, like. 70 or 75. People experience cognitive decline. I’m sorry but it’s reality. Everyone dies. Santa Clause isn’t real. And South’s Austin’s mother is a street walker. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m not an ageist, I’m just a person who has seen many people reach 70 and turn batshit crazy. There’s a reason why many states make you renew your drivers license in person over a certain age, like. 70 or 75. People experience cognitive decline. I’m sorry but it’s reality. Everyone dies. Santa Clause isn’t real. And South’s Austin’s mother is a street walker. 

My firm makes you retire at 60. Yet it’s completely acceptable to have people running our country as president and congress that are 6 months away from not remembering their phone number. Long overdue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, David Dennison said:

One glaring problem on the Hill is that the system of seniority for committee chairs encourages people to stay on well past retirement age.

And it gives the people supporting her in the state a reason to keep returning her. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diane Feinstein, "The Constitution is a living, breathing document that progresses as our nation and its people progress."  

Us, "Okay, the Framers certainly did not anticipate several Senators and Representatives serving into their 80's and 90's.  There should be some sort of progressive formula that combines years of service and age.  Not necessarily term limits, but some mechanism that prevents people from serving 30 years into their years of marked, cognitive decline.  It's what a living, evolving Constitution should be all about."  

Diane Feinstein, "I wasn't referring to me."  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My firm makes you retire at 60. Yet it’s completely acceptable to have people running our country as president and congress that are 6 months away from not remembering their phone number. Long overdue. 
How can they do that? Doesn't that violate discrimination laws? Or is it a "non official" type thing?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:
36 minutes ago, Enchubben said:
My firm makes you retire at 60. Yet it’s completely acceptable to have people running our country as president and congress that are 6 months away from not remembering their phone number. Long overdue. 

How can they do that? Doesn't that violate discrimination laws? Or is it a "non official" type thing?

Airlines do it every day.  Well, used to be 60.  Now it's 65.  But it's 100% mandatory, they strip your wings and bars immediately.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BradInATX said:
40 minutes ago, Enchubben said:
My firm makes you retire at 60. Yet it’s completely acceptable to have people running our country as president and congress that are 6 months away from not remembering their phone number. Long overdue. 

How can they do that? Doesn't that violate discrimination laws? Or is it a "non official" type thing?

While a mandatory retirement age is generally unlawful under ADEA, there is an exception for high level executive types, which generally applies to C-suite types and, more importantly, to partner-level employees in law, accounting, and other service firms.

The idea being that those types are not hurting for employment income (and if they are who gives a shit), and sort of unstated, they need to be able to free-up that revenue share for others.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Enchubben said:

My firm makes you retire at 60. Yet it’s completely acceptable to have people running our country as president and congress that are 6 months away from not remembering their phone number. Long overdue. 

And after they retire, they can just run for Congress. Still have 30 years of service in them! 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BradInATX said:
2 hours ago, Enchubben said:
My firm makes you retire at 60. Yet it’s completely acceptable to have people running our country as president and congress that are 6 months away from not remembering their phone number. Long overdue. 

How can they do that? Doesn't that violate discrimination laws? Or is it a "non official" type thing?

I should clarify - as partner they make you retire, and no it's not.  Written into partnership agreement.

You can return to being an employee after 60, but it never happens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

While a mandatory retirement age is generally unlawful under ADEA, there is an exception for high level executive types, which generally applies to C-suite types and, more importantly, to partner-level employees in law, accounting, and other service firms.

The idea being that those types are not hurting for employment income (and if they are who gives a shit), and sort of unstated, they need to be able to free-up that revenue share for others.

First part is right.

While they are more than happy to have the older folks retire at later stages of their career (especially during a downturn/global pandemic to make room for up and comers/lower potential pensions), that's not the driver.  It's that technology, regulatory changes and demands of the business become overbearing for most people at the age of 60 and after 30 years in the professional service industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone stated, partnership firms have that rule to prevent partners hanging on too long not necessarily because they're unable to produce good work. Other partners want to bring up new partners who are hopefully hungry to find many new customers. In a similar vein, I've seen partner firm toss out non-partners at 50 or 55. You're not going to make partner and someone younger, who might be a partner someday, needs your job. buh-bye.

As for Feinstein, it's sad that she cannot do the job anymore. By all reports, she used to be ridiculously sharp. Someone should have told her no to running in 2018. My guess is that many old senators always see it like they can capably handle one more term. They probably believe it to be true. I guess it's a blessing for people with dementia to not realize they have dementia. But that is fine for the old folks home. If you're in an important power role, we can't have someone who is operating at fraction of where they used to be. 

Is there a Senator Emeritus type role that can give some of these old Senators the ability to hang around but not have actual power? Serve 3 or 4 terms in the Senate, and you can retire to this role that allows you some level of non-voting participation. A role like this might encourage some to retire sooner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

First part is right.

While they are more than happy to have the older folks retire at later stages of their career (especially during a downturn/global pandemic to make room for up and comers/lower potential pensions), that's not the driver.  It's that technology, regulatory changes and demands of the business become overbearing for most people at the age of 60 and after 30 years in the professional service industry.

Well, in law, it is as much freeing up that share of equity as anything.  A partner of that age is prized for their book of business and their general good judgment and wisdom, not for being up to date with the latest propositions in the Federal Register.  That's what associates are for.

Although, particularly in "transactional" IP,  older lawyers have both the wisdom and the technical knowledge and typically get to stick around past mandatory retirement age, but usually without their equity share. They are commonly employed mostly as mentors and teachers for baby lawyers.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this is a hair of topic, it does relate to aging and personal responsibility.  Should we not mandate driving test recertification after a certain age.  I would probably go with 70?  

As we make driving after drinking a crime, because of what "might happen."  The DUI/DWI laws are simply laws that say your actions make if much more likely to cause injury to others.  Actually causing injury is not necessary, it's the mental culpability for what might happen.  Correct?

So when an older person doesn't want to give up their mobility, and they have had their car repaired for minor fender benders 3 times last year. Most involving parked cars or their own garage entries.  The current standard is drive as long as you want, and if you kill somebody accidentally, it will be called an accident.  I think this is wrong.  I think honestly there should be MORE culpability for the old person, simply as they make the bad choice again and again and again, until finally something really bad happens. 

Anyhow just something I see as odd the fact we do NOT test people driving two ton missiles, for competency more often as their competence clearly falls?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...