78 74 78 70 80
Biden, Trump, McConnell, Shumer, Pelosi
MybirdIStheword last edited by
@davesaddiction the numbers mason, what do they mean?
Honestly, a politician's age doesn't bother me.
What does bother me is when they don't listen to or even acknowledge the concerns of others (especially younger people).
Granted, that does seem to be more common as a politician ages ("Back in my day" or "What would a kid know about this" types of thinking), but it's not exactly a universal truth.
The age doesn't bother me, to a point.
But we desperately need term limits, and mental decline is a real thing...
@davesaddiction Mental decline is a real thing, though perhaps a little exaggerated in the news this year... Anyways, I don't see it as a major issue if the politician governs with the help of their constituents.
But I wouldn't disagree to term limits. Encouraging younger people into politics would be easier if there was more turnover, and more young people in politics could help encourage more involvement by the wider public.
If we just kill all the old people we won't have this problem
Poor_sh last edited by
krustywantout last edited by
@forsweden Seems reasonable. (Takes off mask and goes to a nursing home)
LooseonExit last edited by
@cobrajoe My dad's 83. He's still pretty sharp, but it's obvious that his mind is not as capable as it was. And he's become more gullible with age. I think our bullshitometers get worn out with time, and with new technology we don't completely understand.
LooseonExit last edited by LooseonExit
To me, age is a concern. Connecting with your constituents is tough if there is a massive age differential. The whole world is a different place for young people. At times, it can be difficult to connect with my kid - her worldview, how she communicates, consumes information, her tech use, etc and I'm just in my 40s. Add a few generations in there and the divide is gigantic. Not to say I need my Senator TikToking or whatever the hell, but how can they understand the needs and the challenges of younger gens when in this specific case, they grew in the post WWII boom economy that is nothing like that of today. I'd be fine if there was a rolling 62-65 cutoff period for politicians just in general. Health, well being, societal engagement, understanding, mental acuity are important concerns for leaders. At the very least there should be age ranges that match the constituents throughout the power structure. Pelosi in the House, fine. Pelosi as the Leader of the House, no. Someone younger (hell even 2 gens younger) should be there.
@looseonexit All of this.
She could be some college kid's GREAT-GRANDMOTHER, ffs...
@looseonexit That is a very good point, though not completely insurmountable.
The easiest way to fight the age differential problem is to trust the younger generations, or at least have a trustworthy representative of that generation you can consult with.
It's not a fool proof method, but a lot better than having the old politician "trust their own judgement".
But I'd argue against the hard cutoff at 65, that would eliminate almost everyone outside of career politicians. Letting people have a successful career before running for office after retirement might give a valuable "outsider" perspective (Or perhaps a less valuable perspective, depending on the person).
@davesaddiction Mental decline is a problem, but it's not universal in the age it becomes apparent or in it's extents.
davesaddiction last edited by davesaddiction
@cobrajoe Yes, very true.
Term limits are the answer, not hard age limits.
LooseonExit last edited by
I don't disagree, hard age limits might not be the right answer (if there even is a right answer), there's just a limited way to deal with the issue. Having people that had real lives and then got into politics would be a huge benefit to society. Overall, term limits are probably a better answer, though I think term limit length max may be hard to agree on in it's own way. Churn will have it's own downsides IMO. Does Citizen's Untied and term limits make the system worse than than it is already. Maybe? I just don't think having a cap hurts at some point. Do we really need 87yr old reps? I thought 62-65 as an interesting starting point (along lines of retirement/SS standpoint). Later makes more sense if there is a shift to people working then becoming politicians though. I'm not set on anything, just thinking out loud.
dogisbadob last edited by
Time to repeal the ADEA age discrimination act too. Companies should be allowed to fire people 70+ and bring back mandatory retirement, especially for professors that are tenure and can't be fired unless they commit a felony. Old people not retiring is also a reason younger people can't start their careers and move up.
It's also funny because when Biden ran in 88, he was saying pass the torch! He would've been the second youngest president elected instead of the oldest.
I totally agree on term limits, too.
This was another reason I was rooting for Delaney. He's in his 50s, not old, but he had experience in congress and in the private sector. He supports universal healthcare and unions but could also appeal to rural voters.
Chuck Grassley is 87
Another reason is so that the old people can die in office so they can hand pick a successor.
Just Jeepin' last edited by
One concern with term limits is that it elevates the power of lobbyists. Your first few years in Congress you can't possibly have a clue about most of what's going on, so who fills that knowledge gap? People with agendas, who aren't term-limited, with extensive resources.
Plus, the annals of U.S. politics are replete with well-respected names who certainly were around longer than term limits would allow them but who made significant contributions to our national discourse. The Lugar Nunn act was hugely important to the world. John Lewis. John McCain.
With fairer elections, without gerrymandering, with less money in politics, the voters would turn out politicians more often than they do. Let's trust in them.
(Something I can't really say truly earnestly these days, but still.)
dogisbadob last edited by
2020 alone is known for a few 80 year olds with pancreatic cancer that thought they were invincible.
John Lewis knew time wasn't on his side but chose to run anyway. Of course, after he died, the nomination didn't go to Barrington Martin, the only person brave enough to challenge Lewis while he was still alive. Instead, there was this "process" that 130 cowards applied to (who weren't brave enough to challenge Lewis while he was still alive), and of course Martin applied, too. But NOPE! Guess who it went to: Nikema Williams, the GA state party chair in charge of running the process. Yes, the state party chair stole the seat for herself. She's no better than Brian Kemp.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 87, could've retired 10 years ago at 77, also still really old, and she already had cancer then, and democrats had the senate and were able to get Sotomayor through.
A third one, not political, was Alex Trebek. He kept taping new shows after knowing the grim odds of pancreatic cancer; he should've been interviewing replacements instead.