Liberals also say and do stupid shit


See, here’s the problem with this though…

Other than one throwaway section saying , “also Schwarzenegger”, the whole article is about Cortez.

Soo… If all that stuff about Cortez is just satire, then what’s the actual argument in favor of changing the Constitution?

The entire argument being made by Yglesias, is that Cortez is awesome. Like, that’s really the entire article. If you remove it or dismiss it as satire meant to lighten the mood… Then there’s nothing left in the article.

I don’t think you can just handwave away the stuff about Cortez when it’s the vast majority of the article.


I actually believe in the “35 years old +” qualifier. Even more nowadays. Naturalized, I’d have to think about, though I’d probably be ok with it (but probably qualified by a citizenship + residency requirement on the order of 10 years at least.


AOC’s response, FWIW:

“How about… no,” she wrote. “Sometimes political media is too fixated on personalities instead of policies. The whole country JUST went through an exhausting midterm election. We need a break.

“Can we instead talk about healthcare, a living wage, legalizing cannabis, GND [Green New Deal], & other issues?”


Leftist radical! Someone find a Sensible Moderate, for God’s sake!


I’m curious why. MLK Jr. was 34 when he was the voice of the Birmingham boycott, when he wrote “Letter From Birmingham Jail”, when he gave the “I Have a Dream” speech during the March on Washington. Cesar Chavez was 34 when he started the UFW with Dolores Huerta. Forbes publishes multiple lists, every year, of under-30s who are already vastly more impressive than I will ever be.

35 is totally arbitrary. It would be more rational to require a college degree, but we don’t (and probably will never, for good reasons) do that. 35 is even less sensical than term limits. Let the voters decide.


With experience comes wisdom (for most). Being good at organizing doesn’t necessarily mean one is ready to preside over the richest and most powerful country in the world. It also is something of a check on demagogues.


What is a good qualification? And if we come up with a list of good qualifications, why not use those, instead of an arbitrary age requirement, to gate the position? (And I actually disagree. Being a good organizer may be among the best kinds of qualification.)

It’s really, really not.


I think there should be an age requirement. And if there’s going to be any age requirement, it’s going to be somewhat arbitrary. So I’m good with 35.

Really, the age requirement seems like the least restrictive of the requirements. Not old enough to be president? Good news, you will be someday!


Since I am 35 and perfect I am fine with it. Next year though, I believe that 35 is too young and insist on 36 though.


Yeah, since I turned 40 a couple of years ago, I’ve noticed that under-40’s all seem flighty and un-serious. They don’t even know what it’s like to have to hold things at arms-length to read them! I don’t know what the Founders were thinking. No one under 40 should be able to be President.


Huh, you kids are kinda reckless. You’ll settle down in ten years or so.


Does anyone believe there should literally be no age requirement? Should we be able to elect a 17 year old? Maybe just elect “Kid President” from those YouTube videos?

Or are we just making jokes about the reasonable point that it is hard to come to a consensus on specifically what the age requirement should be?


It’s less about 35 and more about I don’t want the I’m invincible 20 year olds in there. There is so much more to learn; 35 seems good.


The good news is that even without a Constitutional requirement, you wouldn’t have to vote for a whippersnapper.


Imagine how all the avocados will bork the White House kitchen budget. No way we want that.


The case was that anyone who can vote should be able to run. But if an 18 year old can win a primary election and make it through the general election season and more Americans vote for her than anyone else, why not? Crucially, the office of President is subject to a national vote. That’s a hard enough wicket. I’m not sure why we need another one.


There’s no measurable problem with requiring someone be 35 to become president. Changing the rule offers no tangible benefit to the country.

But again, that actually isn’t why the article is in this thread. This thread is about how incredibly dumb Yglesias’ article was.


That article is a big blind spot in certain progressive thought leaders (eurgh, that term, but whatever) where their arguments, couched in confident, self-evident assertiveness (here are the Things You Need To Know because We Are Decided) are basically instrumental.


I will admit that changing the rule would probably be pretty inconsequential. But the benefit it would offer is obvious: great candidates younger than 35 are ineligible. Great candidates who aren’t natural citizens are ineligible. It’s dumb to restrict your pool of potential candidates for arbitrary reasons, particularly when the office is filled by tabulating a vote.

If the incredible height of liberal stupidity is using a ridiculous example to make a good, but inconsequential point, I’m very happy to be on team liberal.


If you’re take away the “ridiculous example”, there’s literally no argument in favor of the change. The ridiculous example is the entirety of the article.