So sad to lose such a great stock trader!
- https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/as-feinstein...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_tra...
- https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/14/dianne-feinstein-hu...
etc.
- https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/as-feinstein...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_tra...
- https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/14/dianne-feinstein-hu...
etc.
Even without term limits they should have the decency to know when to call it quits and not become a figurehead where most of the work they’re entrusted with is done behind the scenes by others —none of this bullshit whispering in their ear on how to vote.
At least have them have to pass significant cognitive tests by a panel of competent professionals who are voted in by both parties (or as many parties as have greater than 5% rep).
Weekend at Bernie's should remain a farce and not become reality.
If there's anything 2020-2021 and the 4th branch of the gov't taught me, it's that we need to quit putting authority figures in positions of power over the people, for the sole reason of being an authority figure.
I'm not asking for stringent qualifications. Bare minimum. Have time awareness, place awareness, be aware of the connection between action and consequences, have control over bodily functions. I'm not asking for a Chess champion or math wiz.
Just look how Trump tried to destroy the electoral system for his own gain before and on January 6th. Now apply his tactics to to a "committee" to decide if a democrat can seek reelection.
There is a good system to decide if the CEO is fit or not, it's the board of director. Those are entirely different systems.
But I think this can't realistically be just an issue of voting or not voting for individual elderly senate candidates, for a couple reasons:
- a 6 year term is a long time, and a lot can change during that period
- tenure in the Senate comes with placement on important committees; if your state wants their legislators in positions of power, you're pressured to allow them to accrue more tenure _so long as legislatures from other states are allowed to do the same_. Institutional-level limits on age or fitness must apply across the board.
- X is too old to serve is literally an ad-hominem attack in any given race and individuals competing for office choose not to use it because making that argument comes with real costs. We _should_ try to keep discourse in these races about policy issues. But retirement ages or fitness standards as an across-the-board policy proposal is an appropriate way to safeguard offices without descending into a personal attack about a person's un-chosen attributes.
Edit: I don't disagree with you in theory, but I don't think the system you propose is practicable.
The the American Association of Rapacious People can't have that.
It's probably likely that nobody voted for her in the last 20 years, instead voting for the party she represents. And they're probably roughly satisfied with the results, which means she provided little that an AI couldn't have done (a very simple one, something like VOTE=D).
This is likely true of almost all representatives. It's likely hard to find one that you can't simply predict how they will act.
Picking one number, based on input from experts in psychology and medicine, and applying it to all high-level public trust jobs, and putting it in law in our normal democratic processes would be no more arbitrary than the rule that the President must be at least 35.
I will point out that civilians who want "public trust" positions within the federal government or even as contractors are checked for a range of attributes which may make them potentially unfit for the responsibilities in question. Currently, my understanding is that subsequent to a clearance check, they must sign an agreement to not use substances like marijuana for the duration of their employment. This policy is _also_ not something that Americans voted for. I would argue that Feinstein, who often seemed not to know where she was, or McConnell, who is sometimes unaware that he was making remarks, are far more impaired than someone who occasionally enjoys an edible.
There are also political costs to opposing the incumbent from within the same party. Running a competitive race will be seen as disloyal by many people in the party. It's much less risky to just wait out the incumbent and then run.
For similar reasons, it's really suboptimal for the governor to be choosing Feinstein's interim replacement. Effectively one person will get to choose California's senator for the next 20-30 years.
Become congressperson. Use insider knowledge to make fortuitous trades, remain immune!
This to me falls under the “rules for thee not me.”
For sure you don't, it's the opposite. They sit on so much inside information that people outside the government would never have access to.
If you try and trade a name that's on a restricted trading list (e.g. because the investment banking part of your firm is working on a deal with them) then that is also going to be denied.
If you're wall-crossed (e.g. in possession of material, non-public information, even by accident) for a deal, you absolutely cannot trade in related securities - like, go to jail, do not pass go.