Chuck Grassley, 90-year-old Iowa senator, hospitalized with infection

MicroWave@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 223 points – Chuck Grassley, 90-year-old Iowa senator, hospitalized with infection | CNN Politics
cnn.com

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who is 90 years old, is being treated at a hospital in Iowa for an infection, his office announced Tuesday.

54

90 years old. Why do people keep voting for fossils?

I like Bernie Sanders and his views are younger than his age, but he's 82 now. He needs to pass the torch as well and endorse someone to replace him. He's done his service.

Because anyone without 50 years of seniority won't have the pull to get those sweet, sweet, pork barrel projects.

Committee assignment is via seniority. So yes, they can add shit to bills, but they can also do so much more.

For assholes like Grassley, that equates to being able to do a lot of damage.

That's some bullshit law if I ever saw one.

It’s supposed to keep assholes like the tea partyers or guys like Gates and Greene from getting control in committees until they’ve been there more than 1 term. it’s also why they offset congressional terms. So a state won’t likely end up with all its reps getting replaced at the same time.

I don’t support octogenarian+ politicians (even Bernie needs to pass the torch), but I do support rule makers having to learn how shit works before getting committee power to decide national security or health funding and decisions.

Aren't we having this backwards though? Executive power should lie in the executive. The legislative should legislate, the judiciary should apply justice, and all 3 should keep each other in check.

If we want law knowledge for an elected official to be able to exert its democratically elected power, then it should either be a prerequisite for candidature or better yet, a course on congressional process law (eg they take the training after being elected but before taking the position).

Think about the 80 and 90 year olds in your life.

Now imagine them making laws and policy and regulations on things like tiktok, social media, artificial intelligence, student loans, minimum wage, housing or literally anything that impacts the millions of people under 40.

He's been in office longer than people under 40 have been alive. He was born in 1933. He legit remembers WWII (in his lucid moments). He could have purchased a home from a Sears catalog with his paper route money.

Being old doesn't necessarily mean you are out of touch--it could just mean you are wise and have tons of experience but add in the fact that you are an old senator who has been in office since 1981--and I can almost certainly say you are out of touch.

What do you have in common with the average Iowan at this point? Would could you possibly have in common?

Now imagine them making laws and policy

In fairness, they're mostly just in position to hit the "Yes"/"No" buttons. The actual written policy is produced by think tanks and lobbyists, then passed on to the legislators to submit under their own names.

The 80 to 90 year olds in your life are for the most part not like the 80 to 90 year olds in Congress.

Study after study on aging and mental acuity proves that how you occupy your brain day to day in your younger years pretty much predicts how lucid and sharp you will be in old age.

These are my personal observations: I know a lot of old people. Aside from being a fly fisherman, a sport dominated by old guys, for many years I represented old people in legal cases against certain product manufacturers. By and large, guys who were engineers, say, are much sharper, have better memory, are less angry, and more rational. Similarly, the smartest and wisest old people I know are were career trial lawyers and judges. They had careers that demand intense focus, analysis, and memory, and they are sharper and quicker mentally than many thirty-somethings that I know.

Plenty of young people spend the day bouncing from one distraction or vice to the next, punching the clock, and basically spend their lives regressing and their brains get soft.

He's looking sharp as a tack, alright. Now shut up and color, kids. You're nowhere near as mentally up to it as these pros.

Okay now, if someone could please help the honorable gentleman from Kentucky with his diaper... thank you!

what people don't realize is that this isn't a jpg, it's a livestream of the senator. he's been frozen like this for months.

I read that as the horrible man from Kentucky I liked my version better.

Fluid intelligence declines with age beginning at 30, no amount of brain training can prevent an 80 year old from having meaningful and significant cognitive decline.

LOL you gave a whole lot of anecdotes. Yes, being active and mentally engaged CAN decrease the effects of aging and prolong life. There is no guarantee, however. You see this with people who smoke for decades and are perfectly fine while that vegan you know who does yoga every day suddenly died of cancer.

What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.

Edit: this is a quote from a scene in Billy Madison

It's definitely unpopular but it seemed pretty coherent to me.

It's a movie reference. After Adam Sandler was comparing the economy (or something) to the Poky Little Puppy.

It ends with "I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

I get it, but it doesn't really seem like it applies here.

People definitely either don't agree or don't like it, and like someone else pointed out is very anecdotal, but he's not making some nonsense speech here.

The US forces military personel to retire as early as age 62, with officers being forced out at 64 unless they're a two star or higher, in which case POTUS can defer retirement until age 68. Yet you let your politicians and judges stay if they don't die? SMH... New rule proposal: if you are going to turn 70 in the next term, then you're not eligible for election. And judges are retired the month after their 70th birthday.

10 USC §1253 subsection a: "Unless retired or separated earlier, each regular commissioned officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps serving in a general or flag officer grade shall be retired on the first day of the month following the month in which the officer becomes 64 years of age."

Subsection b abridged: "[...] a grade above major general or rear admiral, the retirement under subsection (a) of that officer may be deferred [...] by the President, but such a deferment may not extend beyond the first day of the month following the month in which the officer becomes 68 years of age [...]"

This is smart and would benefit American people

Therefore, it shall not be done.

Cue the people screaming “you can’t do that it’s ageist policy! What if they’re actually in good shape?”

Doesn’t matter. The ones in poor shape who refuse to give up the throne outweighs the few who somehow manage to stay relevant. It’s being out of touch with the 90% of the population below you in age, and that’s compounded by the bubble politicians live in already with their political games and maneuvering. All designed to keep themselves and their party in charge instead of actually giving a fuck about the country, willing to sacrifice their constituents for a corporate bribe campaign contribution.

People would be fine doing this for those in the service while crying about personal liberties when it affects them. People wouldn't wear masks to preserve the life of your cancer-laden grandmother and they certainly won't retire early and give up their power.

I'm hoping for the best—one less Republican senator.

It's not like any replacement has any hope of not being a Republican.

his replacement is literally his grandson

Ah yes, have a revolution to get rid of the king, then set up your own hereditary political dynasties to rule over the land.

Just leave you old fucks. Why do we keep electing geriatrics? It’s so fucking stupid.

Iowa just voted for Trump again. A whole lot of stupid up in there.

Well it was the Republican caucus so there weren't exactly good options

True but Trump was probably the worst option and he dominated Iowa.

A clear reference to how power could be addictive. True walking tombs still trying to stay in power

Karma, come and take him away already.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who is 90 years old, is being treated at a hospital in Iowa for an infection, his office announced Tuesday.

“Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is receiving antibiotic infusions at an area hospital to treat an infection,” his office said in a brief statement.

“He is in good spirits and will return to work as soon as possible following doctors’ orders.”

Grassley’s absence comes just days before a deadline for a partial government shutdown.

Congressional leaders have agreed to a deal to keep the federal government funded into March, but both parties will need to supply votes to pass the legislation through both chambers before the Friday deadline.

The Senate is slated to take a procedural step to move the government funding resolution along later Tuesday night.

The original article contains 130 words, the summary contains 130 words. Saved 0%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

Hypothetical question: If we Thanos snapped every government official over 75, how many would we lose? And in this alternate America, would you think it'll be better or worse?

Average age of the Senate is 64 and for the House is 57.

68 Senators are over 60. Pelosi was 83 when she quit the House.

As of August last year, 15 Senators were over 80. 4 Senators are over 80, 1 is 90+, (D) Dianne Feinstein but she passed on Sept. 29th.

Pelosi will seek another term in 2024 because fuck the younger generations.

So it looks like 50 senators are 65 and older. Literally half of them are retirement age or older.

126 of the 439 members of the 118th congress are over 65. 65 more are "retirement eligible" from 60-64.

So a third of our House sees geriatric doctors and half of our Senate should be retired.

16 senators should probably start considering nursing homes.

That said, being old isn't itself a problem. Remember, Ben Franklin was in his 80s during the Constitutional convention. There is a lot of wisdom and experience that comes with age. My parents and in-laws for example are in that 60-65 range and they incredibly sharp and have lots of experience and a perspective that you can only get with age. But they are often out of touch with the plight of my generation and the generations behind me, don't have a great handle on modern life from the lense of a 30 year old. But obviously they are empathetic and willing to seek to understand. But I'd say their life experiences are pretty different from your average Congress member who are (generationally) wealthy and have been in politics since their parents were.

I think age + other things like being rich AF, coming from a wealthy and powerful family, being in office for decades, and being in politics in general too long.

Neither party is incentivized to address this problem because seniority gets you the primo spots on committees andincumbents win reelection over 95% of the time. So, naturally you aren't going to oust an old timer for a new young one until you absolutely have to because you'll lose your key committees or possibly have a seat flip. Even constituents enjoy the benefits of the seniority of their rep so voters don't necessarily want to vote them out either.

And let's be clear, if the people of Grassleys state wanted him out, he'd be out.

If an 80 year old has wisdom and experience, nothing is stopping them from writing a book. They can always give advice, that we should all have the right to completely disregard, rather than be bound by it.

Your periodic reminder that US Congress is the oldest legislative body in the world.

We need term limits, age limits, and competency tests, and we’ve needed them since at least the 1970s