We need to look at the paid staff, advisors, funding sources and party officials surrounding the compromised person and ask, hey what the fuck?

In the real world, someone would call Adult Protective Services

DURec

I agree with your assessment.

It would be a shame if everyone shared this 3-minute video of Trump forgetting, misspeaking & his cognitive deficiencies

Link to tweet

❤️

But I was pondering form more than content.

Chuck Grassley, for instance, is definitely growing quite dim. Bernie? Not soi much. We all know that Dianne Feinstein, bless her heart, was not all there in her last days in Congress. But Nancy Pelosi? Still sharp. I'm a little worried about Chuck Schumer these days and think it might be time for him to retire.John Kennedy (ol' putty-face) is either not bright to begin with or losing it. Clay Higgins (whar boxes?) is another one of those. Virginia Foxx---need I say more? And the list goes on....

Just so the voters would know if they had an impairment.

Once politicians reach a certain mental age they really do become a "Weekend at Bernies" husk that is lugged around to the benefit of their handlers.

The electorate is so tuned out and used to unresponsive representation that they are never even aware.

If it applied to ALL members of Congress with no consideration of age. MTG and Boebert would be gone. Oh, and poor Tommy Tuberville.

This difficult conversation will be a kitchen table conversation with increased frequency. It's necessary for everyone. Time to grow up.

If our elected officials aren't prepared to have this conversation can they be trusted to lead, protect.and serve the public?

I don't believe so.

Great post, Celerity. TY. ❤️

they would be held back twice at least.

First of all, who will determine if someone's competence should be tested? Who will do the testing? Will there be a standard test and a standard "passing" score.

I can see that older representatives or Senators from the minority party in particular may be targeted.

I think requiring debates with any opponent, primary or general election, who can show support ( polling if it exists or at least a certain percent of the district on their petition to get on the ballot. If someone can perform in a debate, they are likely competent enough to be in office. This is probably harder to do than the basic competency test AND it is judged by the voters.

There are procedures in place whenever anyone (family, neighbor, doctor) sees, or believes they see, cognitive decline

Anything from APS evaluations to court ordered competency tests

If evaluations determine you shouldn't be driving, or signing legal documents, or using a hot stove, would performing well in a debate do the trick?

Not sure standards should be different for elected politicians

edit to add: I think that's why the Congresswoman is suggesting "standards" specifically for elected officials. Obviously they have massive staff from cooks to gardeners and chauffeurs. But cognitive function is essential to their jobs.

I did scan some results to find out what APS is as I knew nothing about this. I do think that a debate would show a lack of mental competency if a legislator was having cognitive problems.

I think the skills to drive are different, requiring good vision and reflexes as well as good mental processing. So, there might be people who should not drive, who could be legislators.

proclaimed to the public prior to anyone filing to run for Congress... or the White House. I'd go one step further, though... desiring to see if they have a malignant personality trait that would endanger either the office or the people if the individual won. (Like, the Dark Triad of trump's mental illness).

Since Reagan killed the mental health agencies and threw everyone out into the streets, we've had a couple of generations where hereditary mental illness, or at least having a passed-down predisposition towards a mental health condition, is making itself known. Obviously, those usually get worse as the person ages and is prone to some sort of dementia on top of the MH illness.

A plus to instituting this type of requirement is that it might actually work towards removing the last of the stigma that can still come when seeking treatment. Most importantly, tho, is we must never allow someone with a Dark Triad malignant personality type take the highest office of the land and run with it, unchecked. We're just asking to repeat this current decade if we don't do something to avoid it, IMO.

Making either of these two changes will probably require a Constitutional Convention, and we don't want to have one of those while the magas are in the majority or ascending toward it. If we tried it that way, we'd end up with a slimmed down version of the Articles of Confederation, and very little rights and privileges for anyone who isn't a white male in this country. BUT at the very first opportunity with a Democratic administration, I'd like to see a Convention called for publically, and all those things maga screams about right now, or trump demeans and strips of funding, should be noted and explained in plain 6th grade English language. No more wondering if "Shall" is a stronger action word than "Will", for example.

I would love to hope and dream of the day coming soon when we can put this evil of arrogance and cruelty behind us, and civility and community reigns once again.

territory