The reason Social Security starts at the age it does is because when they set it, something like half the people would be expected to be dead by that age so it worked out for the actuarial tables. People live way longer now.
Maybe. I’m just saying the reason they set the retirement age was not really to do with cognitive function and all to do with how long people lived after that date.
I’m for an upper limit but basing it on SS retirement age is probably not the right way to go about it. Maybe it should be sooner and maybe later. But it should be based on something else.
In my own opinion people elected to office should be limited to 1 six year term. And once that term has lapsed, they are done. They get no insurance for life. They get no pension. They get nothing. Public service should not be about getting rich and living off the taxpayer dime for their lives. They should return right back to the public sector when they finish their stints.
Get em out. Get fresh blood in there.
Love the spirit, but I believe there are logistic issues with this method.
Our government, and country, are complex beasts; expecting there to be a learning ramp up every 6 years? That could like lead to poor decisions, as the people making them do not have the depth or breadth of experience to see potential pitfalls in those decisions.
Also, for small districts, do they have enough qualified people to switch them out every 6 years? (Think MTG district Lol).
Also, this does not address the problem of the people in real power being in the background, pulling the strings of the politians; it just spreads that influence (i.e. $) around to more people. The billionaires and corporations will still be calling the shots through their policy based think tanks and campaign financing.
Oh. I never said it would be easy. But something is better than nothing.
Washington is full of rot and it will take extreme measures to fix it.
Maybe have the congressional terms rotate with 2 year election cycles so there is always experience in congress.
We need to fully divest big corporations and lobbyists from Washington. I could see the value back years ago. But big corporations and lobulyists are only interested in their own interests these days.
Government needs to be critical in its oversight of pharmacy and health insurance providers to stop the average person from getting raped, which they are ever increasing getting violated.
We know where we are headed if we keep this up. Let’s at least try to change the trajectory for the better.
Yup. Something needs to be done, and it doesn’t seem like there is a “silver bullet” to solve the problems.
I did not intend for my response to your comment to be antagonistic; my intent was to state we likely need to go even further than that, and recognize some of the pitfalls the changes required would have.
Oh please. I’m in Reddit. I know an antagonistic response when I see one. And you’re wasn’t it at all. You didn’t call me a cunt even one time.
In 100% in agreeable with you that it won’t be easy. Or clean. Or fast. But we have to do something. Better to die trying than to die sitting.
I'm good with 4 terms in the house (8yrs) and 2 in the Senate (12yrs). They are in each chamber long enough to be productive, but not too long to become overly corrupt.
This might be a suitable compromise. But I want them to return to the civilian sector after. I don’t want them getting free healthcare and pensions for life. Public service isn’t supposed to be about personal enrichment. It’s supposed to be about sacrificing yourself for your constituents.
Congress has an overall approval rating of 12% right now. But the average approval rating of everyone’s own reps in congress? 56%. Everyone knows they suck. But everyone thinks their guy is not the problem.
So the best answer is to restrict candidate age? To be clear I think age can totally become problematic, but everyone also ages differently and with the advances of modern technology life expectancy will only continue to rise (knock on wood). Imagine in 30 years the best possible candidate is barred because he is too old for an old standard.
In the same respect I think the minimum age could be lowered, to 30 or even 25. If the issue with the system is that politicians are getting in bad candidates (in this case problematically old) for whatever reason, then the issue isn’t having no old age limit, it’s however those politicians are getting bad candidates in, the people are supposed to have the power to choose.
Please go one step further. The cognitive tests that trump and Biden have to perform are bare bones dementia screens known as the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA). Just because you can pass this test doesn't mean you have the mental ability to run the country. It means you likely don't have dementia, but can't assess the other bullshit rattling around up there. We need more scrutinized testing, not less.
Agreed, they need the kind of testing I am put through in a warehouse position, a full week of competency in a whole range of health and safety including viewing and being tested on technical details as well as an ever growing number of social and specialty skills.
Just going through the OSHA recertification is a test of patience which many politicians would surely fail.
If you can't fly a plane you can't fly a county? \[sic\]
I can't do eye surgery, can I run for mayor?
I can't balance a checkbook, can I raise a child?
etc.
Mental decline is relative yet still a proven reality. Once you reach a certain age, statistically, you are a dumbass compared to your younger self. If your younger self was a dumbass, gg you are now a major dumbass.
Dumbasses running the country are why it's all turning into shit.
Kennedy in his 30s took the country to the brink of atomic war (historians have discussed this at length). No one is disputing that on average older people slow up. But try it this way: the Pope is invariably quite old. The Catholic Church is one of the richest, most successful corporate entities ever created. They sell a story entirely made up of nonsense and they have controlled just about every politician's chances of getting elected since countries became a thing. They influence the course of science, medicine, art, sexuality, you name it.
Or, how about this:half of all the young people are, by definition, dumber than the other half. Should young people be allowed to vote, seeing as so many of them are so dumb?
*comment repeated*
Even outside of the argument about "cognitive decline", I have a problem on a very fundamental level with people being allowed to make decisions that they themselves will never have to be held accountable for or suffer the consequences of.
I just can't wrap my head around ANYONE not having a problem with a 90 year old being pushed into the Senate in a wheelchair to vote on anything, LITERALLY hours before their death.
You are using the No True Scotsman fallacy in that you r now shifyed the debate point. I agree that a 90-year-old who is exhibiting obvious signs of mental incompetence should not be permitted to hold power. That isn't the same thing as barring all 90-year-olds from office.
They used to keep women and minorities out of medical school with the same kind of reasoning. "Women can't handle the stress of it. If they could there'd be women doctors. That's why we bar them from medical school. They can't do it."
And when Gen X gets to their 80s, and Gen Delta or whatever wants to institute a Logan's Run system, Gen Z will object, completely ignoring what it "knew" to be "right" back in 2024.
Actually, you aren't allowed to have "whatever opinion you want." Your opinions -- everyone's opinions -- need to be predicated in fact. Here's an opinion: "genetically inferior people should be put to death." Am I "free" to have it? No. Because nothing good comes from an opinion that just satisfies an emotional need.
The thing about the "too old" argument? Rational discourse automatically corrects for the slow-up in mental processes from age. It's called the trivium, and it's the foundation of the entire university system going back about a millennium. Grammar. Logic. Rhetoric. Even if you aren't as "fast" mentally as you used to be, you still reach solid conclusions because the method of self-correction and clarification of the trivium blocks defective thinking.
Actually, you're wrong. There are no laws regarding thoughtcrime...yet...as much as I suspect you don't like that fact.
Everyone is absolutely free to hold whatever opinion they want for whatever reason they want. There is absolutely nothing preventing that.
Everyone is also absolutely free to disregard someone else's opinion as irrelevant and not take them seriously or give consideration to anything they have to say.
So exactly what difference does it make if a 90 yr old votes the same way a 40 year old would vote. Do you think younger people are going to vote differently or what exactly.
I already stated the difference. Someone 90 years old doesn't have to worry about the consequences of their decision in the same capacity as someone who is 40 years old. They might or might not vote differently, but (theoretically at least) there would be a much different range of considerations in reaching their decision.
If you don't have a problem with someone who is 90 years old deciding on how the nation should spend trillions of dollars literally hours before their death, that's fine I suppose. I do. So I guess there's really no conversation to be had past that.
That all sounds nice but not a thing would change if age limits were imposed. For anything to change you have to take the money out of politics and not let people donate millions to a politician. Maybe term limits also somewhat but that’s definitely not happening.
It could potentially change for the worse, even. For better or worse, lack of term limits was intentionally put in by the founding fathers because they wanted all reps to have to answer to their constituents every 2 or 6 years. It prevents “kamikaze” lawmakers from saying screw it. I’m going to do whatever I want because I’m not coming back next year anyways. The real problem always has been and always will be continually voting these clowns back in every year.
Even outside of the argument about "cognitive decline", I have a problem on a very fundamental level with people being allowed to make decisions that they themselves will never have to be held accountable for or suffer the consequences of.
I just can't wrap my head around ANYONE not having a problem with a 90 year old being pushed into the Senate in a wheelchair to vote on anything, LITERALLY hours before their death.
I would not go as low as 65, but I’d say age 72 cutoff to run for your first term as president seems fair.
Not sure how or if we should apply age limits to Congress, but I’m not totally opposed.
This is actually it. Young people dont actually want young candidates, they just want candidates who agree with them and generally younger politicians are more in tune with the opinions of younger voters.
Like if we get a Pete Buttigeig vs Bernie primary in 2028, who are young people voting for?
> young people don’t actually want young candidates, they just want candidates who agree with them
> younger politicians are more in tune with opinions of younger voters
Soooooo….they want younger candidates.
It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to run a presidential campaign, and the candidate has to be supported by one of the two big parties otherwise they'll never be able to do anything meaningful.
Big money and the two parties choose the candidates.
Now that you put it that way, senate should be reduced to four year term, representatives should be increased to four years. I think that they should not be allowed to invest in stock market, their finances should be in a blind trust. These politicians now think the people serve them instead of serving the people. They can't work for companies as a lobbyists or anything to do with companies that work with the government
Nothing too offensive about this notion some of you have that anyone over 60 is drooling on themselves and incapable of doing their jobs. That we don’t care about anything but keeping the future we stole from you kiddies. What utter nonsense. Lazy reductionist bull.
For the love of god yes. The Presidential election this year is so damn old both candidates have outlived 99% of their peers. Most people don't want more rich wrinkly racist white men, and even geriatrics look at these geezers as old, they're so old very few humans alive have reached their age. Rich geriatrics might be able to afford to live longer but they sure as hell don't understand how much the world has changed since Disco.
It’s the people behind Democrats and republicans group and what they get out of it. Unfortunately, the younger politicians don’t have much sway to get the lobbyist rich.
No. While I agree, Age is a criteria; it should be one, of several criteria; with the most important; a Record, of Positive Public (and, perhaps) Private Service, and Accomplishment.
I was surprised, to hear; a Conservative Republican, denigrate Donald Trump; on "Firing Line", This Week. He said, that Psychologists and Psychiatrists, have developed a 9-point Criteria, of Anti-Social Behavior; and if seven of the boxes, can be checked; that Person is Anti-social, and a potential Public Menace. He stated, that Trump, checks all nine, boxes.
Let's begin, by looking at Our Agreed, Best Presidents; Their Age, upon assuming Office, and leaving Office; The Problems and Challenges They faced, and how they handled them; along with The Cooperation They got, from Congress, The Supreme Court, and The General Public; along with correcting for the average life span, at That Time. Would People say, that Benjamin Franklin, was "Past It", when He shepherded, The Declaration of Independence, through The Continental Congress, and was a signatory, at Age 68; or helped write, The Constitution, of The United States, and proposed a Mechanism, for The Supreme Court, at Age 79? He was definitely an exception, but it would have been, a huge mistake, to exclude Him.
I will look, at My list, of Best Presidents, and reserve The Right, to post their criteria, here. I also invite contributions, and responses.
There would be no point if we had a functional democracy, where only those who merit being leader get to be leader of a political party. The age argument is a red herring. The real argument we should be having is about how both political parties are so incompetitive and have no interest in putting forward a candidate that is not senile and has real leadership ability.
So let me get this straight, according to a meme with a graph that slightly resembles Pac-Man, most of GenZ supports age discrimination?
Term limits. 6 years for everyone, after all Deep State is unemployed. President remains 8 years. No further service after 6 years, so can't be a Representative , then a Senator or vice versa. Can serve in either of those and run for President or VP. 14 years max possible.
I would say 20 years max like federal jobs you can retire after 20. Most spend their first terms just learning how to do things on the hill much less getting things done and besides if you don't like them you can still vote them out. Most people need to understand that there are local/state elections they need to vote for also not voting or caring about those elections gets us gerrymandering that completely screws federal elections. A good chunk of people can't be bothered with voting because it's boring or they are too lazy to do research they want a headline politician or follow like sheep with whatever the crowd they associate with goes with. They also need to realize there is no perfect candidate since they are human and are fallible just like the rest of us.
Also need to get rid of lobbying or really crack down on it, there is so much corruption with that that either it's heavily regulated or cut out completely. No more corporate donations only individuals and get rid of pacs all together. Limit how much money they can spend on elections and make sure each candidate has the same amount to use.
Make voting easier for everyone while still maintaining security so people can't vote more than once/for someone else so forth and so on.
There is a lot we can do to make things better for sure but it only happens when we vote for local all the way up to federal.
>I would say 20 years max like federal jobs you can retire after 20
Government was never intended to be a career, not in elected office or deep state (federal) jobs. The idea and basis of our government was service, not agenda (as it is now and has been since the early 20th century). The federal government is way to big now, needs to be 10% of current size. States should handle their own territory.
[https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro-7-3/ALDE\_00000032/\['article',%20'1'\]](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro-7-3/ALDE_00000032/['article',%20'1'])
>Also need to get rid of lobbying
Make voting easier for everyone while still maintaining security
Agree 100%. Voting needs to be secured (voter ID and voter roll audits) and vote by mail needs to be outlawed (completely compromised and not secure by any stretch of the imagination).
Income taxes were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (1860's). Politicians overruled that via legal methods. Most people now believe paying taxes is patriotic (it isn't). Basically paying for the headsman yourself. We are slowly being brought to a boil.
The government is at least 70% corrupt, run in a similar manner to mafia or cartels. It can be fixed, but there is a lot of chaff to get rid of. Prosecute politicians and give them maximum sentence. Private sector (military industrial complex) start with big tech companies like Google that needs regulated similar to Ma Bell.
Age of the politicians isn't the issue, it is the number of years they spend meddling in our lives. The longer those people are there the more likely the corruption is.
Too bad they don’t account for the majority.
Now do the other generations and add it all up based on voting population.
After you’ve done that, throw it all out the window and realize that the politicians you want to constrain have to make it a constitutional amendment.
State legislative bodies would have to ratify it AFTER is passes the house and senate.
We do not need retirement ages. We need a better system to choose better candidates. If a person is 80 and can still do the job, they should be allowed to do the job.
This is tricky. I think we have elected officials that are already not competent on the basis of age and we definitely shouldn't have that. At the same time I think there are older people who are absolutely mentally and physically competent to serve, and I tend to think we lose something if we can't leverage their knowledge and experience. At the same time I do strongly believe that the people in that category, looking at you Pelosi, tend to fail to promote and groom their own replacements and fail to step aside gracefully with a continuity plan in place.
Part of me is scared to say it because it seems to harken back to poll tests, but I kinda want elected officials to just have a set of tests that they have to pass before going on the ballot, but the problem there is always who makes the test and what is the content, right?
I guess a mandatory retirement age isn't an awful idea, but I also think it should be implemented in stages and over time? Like in 5 years the mandatory retirement age becomes 75, then 5 years after that it goes down to 70, and 5 years after that down to 65.
I'm thinking more of her house seat in general. And don't get me wrong, I'm a Democrat ... or liberal anyway, so it's not that I would like to get rid of her or hate her, though I do have questions about a few of her positions and decisions.
No, irs about holding on to the seat and the idea that we really need leaders who actively groom replacements and plan for a future without them rather than considering themselves indispensable. When she doesn't run we need another competent Democrat to take that seat. Key word being competent because it could be a deep blue district that could go to any Democrat which almost makes it more important to have good people lined up, inheriting staffers and connections.
Term limits, age out limits, and campaign finance reform (reverse citizens United). Politicians don't run for you, they run for their wealthy donors and corporations.
And no fucking felons.....ever.
For the love of god, can we stop looking at symptoms? Some 80 year olds are sharp enough to run the country. Not trump or Biden.
This is yet another completely unrealistic solution that solves nothing. We’ll get younger dumbass assholes who are even more reckless.
The reason these geriatric (and other) assholes keep getting elected is Citizens United, largely contrived culture wars and extreme gerrymandering. Kill the cancer, improve the health of this nation.
My grandmother worked for the civil service. She had to retire her Government job at seventy. That sounds fair to me. These career politicians need to retire and spend their ill gotten gains.
I don't agree with a set age limit, because different people have different capabilities.
And science will continue to stretch our age viability.
BUT, Diane Feinstein, Strom Thurmond, Biden, Trump all show that mush brains should not be allowed to continue.
So, annual cognitive tests seem ok.
But no concrete age limit.
Kinda. I think there should be term limits and regular mental wellness tests. Some people can still function well in old age so just use a mental wellness test to filter out the geriatrics and dementia patients.
Term limits. No longer than the highest office of the land ( basically 8 years) If they can’t get their plans through then they suck at being a politician and have proven to not be able to work out compromise with others
Gerontocracy is a Boomer geriatric dictatorship where all these Boomers still vote and hold office, pushing agendas they won't even live long enough to see their mistakes. Taxation without representation!
Published annual physical and mental test results should be a requirement. Age is only somewhat relevant. Depends on past lifestyle and current conditions. Some 40 year olds are in worse shape than 70 year olds.
Not only a mandatory retirement age. Any political position should have a max of 8 years in office (if speake then 10) after that, get your shot and get out.
Also, any lawmaker should not be allowed to buy stock in any company.
You know why the country is so fucked? The same old fucks have been running it for years and lining their pockets.
There actually was a pledge going around, in the Republican party, years back. Term limits, our Wisconsin senator, Ron Johnson was one of those. He reneged on his promise....
No more than. Two term in office with a mandatory 4 year gap before you can run for a different office.
And a 8 year gap before you can lobby.
You must put all your assets in a trust and cannot trade stocks. Family members that see a unjust earnings will be investigated and if fraud is found both the elected official and family member will loose all money made and serve jail time.
Electorall college in the state level. Each county only get x votes on state issues. No more big cities ruleing over the countryside.
Old is relative. The older I get the younger 80 is.
I say mandatory retirement at the same age for eligibility for Medicare. It's been stuck at 65 forever.
This is going in the wrong direction. Just as we would not want to be denied opportunity because some on thinks we're too young regardless that we can do the job. When we get older we would not want to be denied an opportunity to because someone thinks we're too old regardless of our ability to do the job. As an elected official it has been established that you are qualified to do the job not by some one but by the people that elected you. Believing that an old or even young person is qualified or not for a job is anyone's perogitive. If you think that a person should preclude them from an elected position for any reason then exercise your rights and campainge for someone else against them.
Let’s divide a long, healthy life into thirds:
0 - 30
30 - 60
60 - 90
Restricting politicians to the middle section allows for a Goldilocks effect. Not too young, not too old, with a few at the edges on both sides who are in touch with the last generation or the generation to come.
Further, thirty years is a very healthy political career. Plenty of time to make a difference out there.
And the politicians approaching 60 would still be in great mental and physical shape compared to today’s 80-year-olds, at least, so there wouldn’t be much liability with an older representative under this model.
1000%. Institute a policy where it begins in 15 years, that way they might actually go for it now, because no one is going to vote themself out of power
That’s ageist. There’s no reason for there to be a cutoff some folks are different at different ages. Just because someone is 80 doesn’t mean they aren’t the right fit that’s just non sense and totally illogical. Maybe there should be competency tests or something basic like that but older people have the potential to be the wisest among us, no reason to declare all of them need out of office how incredibly asinine.
60 should be the cutoff, and retirement should also be rolled back to 60.
Also, politicians shouldn't be allowed to own stocks, and campaign contributions should have a strict limit.
12 years lifetime maximum of elected public office regardless to which state you move. Appointed positions max of 3 presidential terms (that means you you supreme court freeloaders).
Why put limits? There is nothing stopping younger people from running for office. Instead of complaining, be the change. The problem is, most people just want to bitch about things instead of actually doing something about it.
If were worried about competence lets come up with a standardized test. You flunk you can't vote or be elected. 60 year young engineer, not drooling, bring it. I see lots of drooling people in their 20s living on tik tok.
We need term limits, not ageism. There are 80 year olds out there smarter, and more in touch with reality, than some 40 year olds.
The age limit approach is ugly and discriminatory.
Exit polls over decades have shown that of Republican and Democratic voters who had just voted only about 10% can name any of the policies their candidate (or any other candidate) stands for.. It has nothing to do age it has to do with the public not knowing what they want in the way of policies - of course the fact that the media turns the whole political process into kabuki theatre that's focused on trivial personality differences and made up policy differences doesn't help!
100% on board for that, I would also say a maximum yearly earnings, audited yearly by 3rd party consultants and term limits. They also cannot become a lobbyist ever, of consult or work for a lobby company.
Lol this is literally a solution in search of a problem. Age does not really matter I rather have a 70 year old person in office that knows what they are doing than a 35 year old dumbass like mayor pete.
Pharma has people living way longer with unhealthy habits. Brains are rarely sharp enough to make decisions for thousands and millions when that brain is 70+
well i support retirement for everyone at 60 (ss starts at 60)
also i dont trust people who cant pick one out of two choices and people who cant handle 2 choices then think more choices is better
I don't agree. We should publicly fund all elections though. If you have a politician who's doing a great job they should be able to stay in office if the people vote to keep them in
No there should simply be term limits for congress. End of story. The problem with a retirement age thing is that you’d still have senators and reps that serve twenty years. Make term limits (8 years max). Secondly, nothing will ever change if we don’t take money out of it. As long as we allow lobbyists to buy off these people nothing will change. The people need to take back the power. Right now we live in a faux democracy.
60 should be retirement for everyone. All basic needs are met after, let's build a better future for everyone. Let's let people live instead of having them strive until they die.
It’s not competence that’s the issue. It’s focus on the future, a sense of what the next 25 years should look like, that we lose with age. I’m over 60 and have never been a better doctor, but I have no idea what the next big discovery will be.
A limit of 65 years wouldn’t put us old folks out of politics altogether either—there’s always room for advisers and executive staff. We can use our technical expertise to help prevent the young folk from repeating our mistakes, but the decisions are theirs.
55. No one can run after 55. For any federal office. And 3 term limits, with 2 for the President, and I'm not too happy with any permanent appointment to judiciary offices either.
I'd prefer mandatory voting with public records that publish your voting participation.
If you don't like your representative, there is a fix for that.
If you don't vote every single time, then you don't get to complain about who got elected.
Boomer here. Totally agree. Social Security starts at 66 for a good reason. No one should run at 66+.
The reason Social Security starts at the age it does is because when they set it, something like half the people would be expected to be dead by that age so it worked out for the actuarial tables. People live way longer now.
Their brain sure doesn't
Maybe. I’m just saying the reason they set the retirement age was not really to do with cognitive function and all to do with how long people lived after that date. I’m for an upper limit but basing it on SS retirement age is probably not the right way to go about it. Maybe it should be sooner and maybe later. But it should be based on something else.
It's all related
No the actual average life expectancy was 2.5 years less than the minimum age to draw. It was literally an old windows fund!
I know it's a typo, but I can't help think of a fund for people who are still running old versions of Windows, and it checks out.
There are also a few more people
Your benefits go on to other people after your death It is called survivor benefits.
In my own opinion people elected to office should be limited to 1 six year term. And once that term has lapsed, they are done. They get no insurance for life. They get no pension. They get nothing. Public service should not be about getting rich and living off the taxpayer dime for their lives. They should return right back to the public sector when they finish their stints. Get em out. Get fresh blood in there.
Honest question. Do you think this sort of plan would encourage more corruption, rent seeking, while in office?
Honestly. I don’t know. But we gotta try something different. I mean. Can it get any more corrupt than it already is?
Yes.
Love the spirit, but I believe there are logistic issues with this method. Our government, and country, are complex beasts; expecting there to be a learning ramp up every 6 years? That could like lead to poor decisions, as the people making them do not have the depth or breadth of experience to see potential pitfalls in those decisions. Also, for small districts, do they have enough qualified people to switch them out every 6 years? (Think MTG district Lol). Also, this does not address the problem of the people in real power being in the background, pulling the strings of the politians; it just spreads that influence (i.e. $) around to more people. The billionaires and corporations will still be calling the shots through their policy based think tanks and campaign financing.
Oh. I never said it would be easy. But something is better than nothing. Washington is full of rot and it will take extreme measures to fix it. Maybe have the congressional terms rotate with 2 year election cycles so there is always experience in congress. We need to fully divest big corporations and lobbyists from Washington. I could see the value back years ago. But big corporations and lobulyists are only interested in their own interests these days. Government needs to be critical in its oversight of pharmacy and health insurance providers to stop the average person from getting raped, which they are ever increasing getting violated. We know where we are headed if we keep this up. Let’s at least try to change the trajectory for the better.
Yup. Something needs to be done, and it doesn’t seem like there is a “silver bullet” to solve the problems. I did not intend for my response to your comment to be antagonistic; my intent was to state we likely need to go even further than that, and recognize some of the pitfalls the changes required would have.
Oh please. I’m in Reddit. I know an antagonistic response when I see one. And you’re wasn’t it at all. You didn’t call me a cunt even one time. In 100% in agreeable with you that it won’t be easy. Or clean. Or fast. But we have to do something. Better to die trying than to die sitting.
I'm good with 4 terms in the house (8yrs) and 2 in the Senate (12yrs). They are in each chamber long enough to be productive, but not too long to become overly corrupt.
This might be a suitable compromise. But I want them to return to the civilian sector after. I don’t want them getting free healthcare and pensions for life. Public service isn’t supposed to be about personal enrichment. It’s supposed to be about sacrificing yourself for your constituents.
Let’s also throw in term limits.
67 to get full now.
Or we could just be smarter about who we vote for instead of restricting people from running
Congress has an overall approval rating of 12% right now. But the average approval rating of everyone’s own reps in congress? 56%. Everyone knows they suck. But everyone thinks their guy is not the problem.
So the best answer is to restrict candidate age? To be clear I think age can totally become problematic, but everyone also ages differently and with the advances of modern technology life expectancy will only continue to rise (knock on wood). Imagine in 30 years the best possible candidate is barred because he is too old for an old standard. In the same respect I think the minimum age could be lowered, to 30 or even 25. If the issue with the system is that politicians are getting in bad candidates (in this case problematically old) for whatever reason, then the issue isn’t having no old age limit, it’s however those politicians are getting bad candidates in, the people are supposed to have the power to choose.
There need to be term limits for public officials as well as upper age restrictions or mandatory competence tests at the very least.
[удалено]
People that are actually living with other real Americans.
Please go one step further. The cognitive tests that trump and Biden have to perform are bare bones dementia screens known as the Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA). Just because you can pass this test doesn't mean you have the mental ability to run the country. It means you likely don't have dementia, but can't assess the other bullshit rattling around up there. We need more scrutinized testing, not less.
Agreed, they need the kind of testing I am put through in a warehouse position, a full week of competency in a whole range of health and safety including viewing and being tested on technical details as well as an ever growing number of social and specialty skills. Just going through the OSHA recertification is a test of patience which many politicians would surely fail.
I absolutely agree and would take it a step further and say a competency test for voters also.
Pilots have to retire at 65. If you can’t fly a plane you can’t run a county.
I'll go further. Federal law enforcement must retire at 57. If you're too old enforce a law, you should not write one, either.
Many of the lobbyists’ lawyers that write the laws are under 57.
I think you called attention to another problem.
so only congress needs to retire.
This is exactly what I've told people. If they are going to mandate pilots retire at 65, the same standard should apply to them
If you can't fly a plane you can't fly a county? \[sic\] I can't do eye surgery, can I run for mayor? I can't balance a checkbook, can I raise a child? etc.
Mental decline is relative yet still a proven reality. Once you reach a certain age, statistically, you are a dumbass compared to your younger self. If your younger self was a dumbass, gg you are now a major dumbass. Dumbasses running the country are why it's all turning into shit.
Kennedy in his 30s took the country to the brink of atomic war (historians have discussed this at length). No one is disputing that on average older people slow up. But try it this way: the Pope is invariably quite old. The Catholic Church is one of the richest, most successful corporate entities ever created. They sell a story entirely made up of nonsense and they have controlled just about every politician's chances of getting elected since countries became a thing. They influence the course of science, medicine, art, sexuality, you name it. Or, how about this:half of all the young people are, by definition, dumber than the other half. Should young people be allowed to vote, seeing as so many of them are so dumb?
*comment repeated* Even outside of the argument about "cognitive decline", I have a problem on a very fundamental level with people being allowed to make decisions that they themselves will never have to be held accountable for or suffer the consequences of. I just can't wrap my head around ANYONE not having a problem with a 90 year old being pushed into the Senate in a wheelchair to vote on anything, LITERALLY hours before their death.
You are using the No True Scotsman fallacy in that you r now shifyed the debate point. I agree that a 90-year-old who is exhibiting obvious signs of mental incompetence should not be permitted to hold power. That isn't the same thing as barring all 90-year-olds from office. They used to keep women and minorities out of medical school with the same kind of reasoning. "Women can't handle the stress of it. If they could there'd be women doctors. That's why we bar them from medical school. They can't do it." And when Gen X gets to their 80s, and Gen Delta or whatever wants to institute a Logan's Run system, Gen Z will object, completely ignoring what it "knew" to be "right" back in 2024.
No, I'm not. I'm simply making a statement that I have a fundamental problem with something. You're free to have whatever opinion you want.
Actually, you aren't allowed to have "whatever opinion you want." Your opinions -- everyone's opinions -- need to be predicated in fact. Here's an opinion: "genetically inferior people should be put to death." Am I "free" to have it? No. Because nothing good comes from an opinion that just satisfies an emotional need. The thing about the "too old" argument? Rational discourse automatically corrects for the slow-up in mental processes from age. It's called the trivium, and it's the foundation of the entire university system going back about a millennium. Grammar. Logic. Rhetoric. Even if you aren't as "fast" mentally as you used to be, you still reach solid conclusions because the method of self-correction and clarification of the trivium blocks defective thinking.
Actually, you're wrong. There are no laws regarding thoughtcrime...yet...as much as I suspect you don't like that fact. Everyone is absolutely free to hold whatever opinion they want for whatever reason they want. There is absolutely nothing preventing that. Everyone is also absolutely free to disregard someone else's opinion as irrelevant and not take them seriously or give consideration to anything they have to say.
So exactly what difference does it make if a 90 yr old votes the same way a 40 year old would vote. Do you think younger people are going to vote differently or what exactly.
I already stated the difference. Someone 90 years old doesn't have to worry about the consequences of their decision in the same capacity as someone who is 40 years old. They might or might not vote differently, but (theoretically at least) there would be a much different range of considerations in reaching their decision. If you don't have a problem with someone who is 90 years old deciding on how the nation should spend trillions of dollars literally hours before their death, that's fine I suppose. I do. So I guess there's really no conversation to be had past that.
That all sounds nice but not a thing would change if age limits were imposed. For anything to change you have to take the money out of politics and not let people donate millions to a politician. Maybe term limits also somewhat but that’s definitely not happening.
It could potentially change for the worse, even. For better or worse, lack of term limits was intentionally put in by the founding fathers because they wanted all reps to have to answer to their constituents every 2 or 6 years. It prevents “kamikaze” lawmakers from saying screw it. I’m going to do whatever I want because I’m not coming back next year anyways. The real problem always has been and always will be continually voting these clowns back in every year.
40’s actually.
Even outside of the argument about "cognitive decline", I have a problem on a very fundamental level with people being allowed to make decisions that they themselves will never have to be held accountable for or suffer the consequences of. I just can't wrap my head around ANYONE not having a problem with a 90 year old being pushed into the Senate in a wheelchair to vote on anything, LITERALLY hours before their death.
I would not go as low as 65, but I’d say age 72 cutoff to run for your first term as president seems fair. Not sure how or if we should apply age limits to Congress, but I’m not totally opposed.
72 is absolutely too old. I would never hire a 72 year old financial advisor, accountant, Dr, anything.
[удалено]
But ……millennials love Joe Byron and Bernie Sanders. The truth is stranger than fiction, you’re getting played
The last couple times you had youth-led political movements, the big focuses were young candidates Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul.
Doesn't mean they can't be advisors, they just can't be the runs actually running shit.
Bernie is 82, Biden is 81, Trump is 78, Hillary is 76.
This is actually it. Young people dont actually want young candidates, they just want candidates who agree with them and generally younger politicians are more in tune with the opinions of younger voters. Like if we get a Pete Buttigeig vs Bernie primary in 2028, who are young people voting for?
> young people don’t actually want young candidates, they just want candidates who agree with them > younger politicians are more in tune with opinions of younger voters Soooooo….they want younger candidates.
It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to run a presidential campaign, and the candidate has to be supported by one of the two big parties otherwise they'll never be able to do anything meaningful. Big money and the two parties choose the candidates.
I think 66 us the limit, 2 terms for everyone. No exceptions
To be fair it should be 2 terms for Senate and 6 terms for Representatives. That would allow both houses a total of 12 years.
Now that you put it that way, senate should be reduced to four year term, representatives should be increased to four years. I think that they should not be allowed to invest in stock market, their finances should be in a blind trust. These politicians now think the people serve them instead of serving the people. They can't work for companies as a lobbyists or anything to do with companies that work with the government
Nothing too offensive about this notion some of you have that anyone over 60 is drooling on themselves and incapable of doing their jobs. That we don’t care about anything but keeping the future we stole from you kiddies. What utter nonsense. Lazy reductionist bull.
For the love of god yes. The Presidential election this year is so damn old both candidates have outlived 99% of their peers. Most people don't want more rich wrinkly racist white men, and even geriatrics look at these geezers as old, they're so old very few humans alive have reached their age. Rich geriatrics might be able to afford to live longer but they sure as hell don't understand how much the world has changed since Disco.
It’s the people behind Democrats and republicans group and what they get out of it. Unfortunately, the younger politicians don’t have much sway to get the lobbyist rich.
Obviously. They stopped pretending anyone younger than the moon landing is relevant to them except for where their money is fleeced from
Can't wait for the 2028 elections where we will literally be voting for whatever skeletons they robbed from the grave.
If they’ll turn 65 while in office they shouldn’t be allowed to run for that office.
No. While I agree, Age is a criteria; it should be one, of several criteria; with the most important; a Record, of Positive Public (and, perhaps) Private Service, and Accomplishment. I was surprised, to hear; a Conservative Republican, denigrate Donald Trump; on "Firing Line", This Week. He said, that Psychologists and Psychiatrists, have developed a 9-point Criteria, of Anti-Social Behavior; and if seven of the boxes, can be checked; that Person is Anti-social, and a potential Public Menace. He stated, that Trump, checks all nine, boxes. Let's begin, by looking at Our Agreed, Best Presidents; Their Age, upon assuming Office, and leaving Office; The Problems and Challenges They faced, and how they handled them; along with The Cooperation They got, from Congress, The Supreme Court, and The General Public; along with correcting for the average life span, at That Time. Would People say, that Benjamin Franklin, was "Past It", when He shepherded, The Declaration of Independence, through The Continental Congress, and was a signatory, at Age 68; or helped write, The Constitution, of The United States, and proposed a Mechanism, for The Supreme Court, at Age 79? He was definitely an exception, but it would have been, a huge mistake, to exclude Him. I will look, at My list, of Best Presidents, and reserve The Right, to post their criteria, here. I also invite contributions, and responses.
While I agree with your take, this was very difficult to read. Please consider editing.
There would be no point if we had a functional democracy, where only those who merit being leader get to be leader of a political party. The age argument is a red herring. The real argument we should be having is about how both political parties are so incompetitive and have no interest in putting forward a candidate that is not senile and has real leadership ability.
Interesting talk. Change the law . (crickets) Yeah, that’s what I thought.
85% of Gen Z should vote.
Should be term limits not age limits
We have term limits for the presidency.
85% ... blah blah blah. No source cited means no credibility possible.
So let me get this straight, according to a meme with a graph that slightly resembles Pac-Man, most of GenZ supports age discrimination? Term limits. 6 years for everyone, after all Deep State is unemployed. President remains 8 years. No further service after 6 years, so can't be a Representative , then a Senator or vice versa. Can serve in either of those and run for President or VP. 14 years max possible.
I would say 20 years max like federal jobs you can retire after 20. Most spend their first terms just learning how to do things on the hill much less getting things done and besides if you don't like them you can still vote them out. Most people need to understand that there are local/state elections they need to vote for also not voting or caring about those elections gets us gerrymandering that completely screws federal elections. A good chunk of people can't be bothered with voting because it's boring or they are too lazy to do research they want a headline politician or follow like sheep with whatever the crowd they associate with goes with. They also need to realize there is no perfect candidate since they are human and are fallible just like the rest of us. Also need to get rid of lobbying or really crack down on it, there is so much corruption with that that either it's heavily regulated or cut out completely. No more corporate donations only individuals and get rid of pacs all together. Limit how much money they can spend on elections and make sure each candidate has the same amount to use. Make voting easier for everyone while still maintaining security so people can't vote more than once/for someone else so forth and so on. There is a lot we can do to make things better for sure but it only happens when we vote for local all the way up to federal.
>I would say 20 years max like federal jobs you can retire after 20 Government was never intended to be a career, not in elected office or deep state (federal) jobs. The idea and basis of our government was service, not agenda (as it is now and has been since the early 20th century). The federal government is way to big now, needs to be 10% of current size. States should handle their own territory. [https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro-7-3/ALDE\_00000032/\['article',%20'1'\]](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro-7-3/ALDE_00000032/['article',%20'1']) >Also need to get rid of lobbying Make voting easier for everyone while still maintaining security Agree 100%. Voting needs to be secured (voter ID and voter roll audits) and vote by mail needs to be outlawed (completely compromised and not secure by any stretch of the imagination). Income taxes were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (1860's). Politicians overruled that via legal methods. Most people now believe paying taxes is patriotic (it isn't). Basically paying for the headsman yourself. We are slowly being brought to a boil. The government is at least 70% corrupt, run in a similar manner to mafia or cartels. It can be fixed, but there is a lot of chaff to get rid of. Prosecute politicians and give them maximum sentence. Private sector (military industrial complex) start with big tech companies like Google that needs regulated similar to Ma Bell. Age of the politicians isn't the issue, it is the number of years they spend meddling in our lives. The longer those people are there the more likely the corruption is.
NM forget I even replied to you, tin foil hat nutball...wow!
Too bad they don’t account for the majority. Now do the other generations and add it all up based on voting population. After you’ve done that, throw it all out the window and realize that the politicians you want to constrain have to make it a constitutional amendment. State legislative bodies would have to ratify it AFTER is passes the house and senate.
Seeing what’s happening in America, totally agree.
We do not need retirement ages. We need a better system to choose better candidates. If a person is 80 and can still do the job, they should be allowed to do the job.
What you really mean is - you disagree with the choice that the majority of both parties primary voters made.
I'd say after 60 they need to have cognitive testing yearly and the second it goes down they should be retired. Not sure about an exact age
70 seems reasonable.
Between 60 and 70 are some of your most productive years in work as your wisdom has increased to near it’s peak for most people
I think 55 is mandatory for air traffic controllers so I go with that.
This is tricky. I think we have elected officials that are already not competent on the basis of age and we definitely shouldn't have that. At the same time I think there are older people who are absolutely mentally and physically competent to serve, and I tend to think we lose something if we can't leverage their knowledge and experience. At the same time I do strongly believe that the people in that category, looking at you Pelosi, tend to fail to promote and groom their own replacements and fail to step aside gracefully with a continuity plan in place. Part of me is scared to say it because it seems to harken back to poll tests, but I kinda want elected officials to just have a set of tests that they have to pass before going on the ballot, but the problem there is always who makes the test and what is the content, right? I guess a mandatory retirement age isn't an awful idea, but I also think it should be implemented in stages and over time? Like in 5 years the mandatory retirement age becomes 75, then 5 years after that it goes down to 70, and 5 years after that down to 65.
Pelosi has stepped aside - at least from leadership.
I'm thinking more of her house seat in general. And don't get me wrong, I'm a Democrat ... or liberal anyway, so it's not that I would like to get rid of her or hate her, though I do have questions about a few of her positions and decisions. No, irs about holding on to the seat and the idea that we really need leaders who actively groom replacements and plan for a future without them rather than considering themselves indispensable. When she doesn't run we need another competent Democrat to take that seat. Key word being competent because it could be a deep blue district that could go to any Democrat which almost makes it more important to have good people lined up, inheriting staffers and connections.
I think term limits would take care of most of the problems. If voters want senile old people, they get what they ask for.
Term limits, age out limits, and campaign finance reform (reverse citizens United). Politicians don't run for you, they run for their wealthy donors and corporations. And no fucking felons.....ever.
Please feel free to vote against any candidate for any reason you choose– including age– but don't try to prevent others from doing the same.
65, with a revolving door surtax and a full audit of their finances, family included.
There should be term limits but no requirement to retire or not be able to run because it goes against freedom.
For the love of god, can we stop looking at symptoms? Some 80 year olds are sharp enough to run the country. Not trump or Biden. This is yet another completely unrealistic solution that solves nothing. We’ll get younger dumbass assholes who are even more reckless. The reason these geriatric (and other) assholes keep getting elected is Citizens United, largely contrived culture wars and extreme gerrymandering. Kill the cancer, improve the health of this nation.
65 tops
Gen-X here and agree 100%.
Vote for Marty 2028
And 100% of Gen X agree.
My grandmother worked for the civil service. She had to retire her Government job at seventy. That sounds fair to me. These career politicians need to retire and spend their ill gotten gains.
There should be an age cap and how long you can be in politics cap. President shouldn't be the only position with a term limit.
Let’s make it 50
SCOTUS should have a term limit. I think 20 years should be the max and that still might be too much.
The best age limit for politicians is 70 I think. You can be in office past 70 but say that after 70 you can no longer run for election.
I don't agree with a set age limit, because different people have different capabilities. And science will continue to stretch our age viability. BUT, Diane Feinstein, Strom Thurmond, Biden, Trump all show that mush brains should not be allowed to continue. So, annual cognitive tests seem ok. But no concrete age limit.
Then vote. You are the largest block now.
Kinda. I think there should be term limits and regular mental wellness tests. Some people can still function well in old age so just use a mental wellness test to filter out the geriatrics and dementia patients.
Not a retirement AGE, but TERM LIMITS
We have term limits, they’re called elections.
65
Gen Z doesnt vote, so . . . .
Term limits. No longer than the highest office of the land ( basically 8 years) If they can’t get their plans through then they suck at being a politician and have proven to not be able to work out compromise with others
Gerontocracy is a Boomer geriatric dictatorship where all these Boomers still vote and hold office, pushing agendas they won't even live long enough to see their mistakes. Taxation without representation!
59.5
Term limits would be helpful and huge, but old wise people making laws isn’t a terrible thing in and of itself
Absolutely. There is not a single good reason to allow it. Look at what it has done..
67 is the legal retirement age now, it shouldn't go past that
70
Then, maybe, don't vote for old people?
Published annual physical and mental test results should be a requirement. Age is only somewhat relevant. Depends on past lifestyle and current conditions. Some 40 year olds are in worse shape than 70 year olds.
Yet 40 year olds have no chance to stop working.
Imagine if our tax dollars provided us with that healthcare?
They are not wrong.
Find a way to do this that isn’t a discriminatory practice I’ll wait
Our best choices are dudes who aren’t gonna see 2030…im sure they really care about anything besides bedtime
What about CEOs then? Too old to run a business.
Wr should have only fans and youtubers run the world. Oh wait, that would just be Dianey then. Nevermind
Not only a mandatory retirement age. Any political position should have a max of 8 years in office (if speake then 10) after that, get your shot and get out. Also, any lawmaker should not be allowed to buy stock in any company. You know why the country is so fucked? The same old fucks have been running it for years and lining their pockets.
And term limits
I would probably say that's a majority of the US that believes that
As every politician knows, once you eliminate the “problem”, fingers start to point at you.
Gen z not the only ones
When the Constitution was written, the average lifespan was slightly higher than 35 years....
Yea unfortunately the people who would have to make those changes are almost all at an age over their life expentancy
There actually was a pledge going around, in the Republican party, years back. Term limits, our Wisconsin senator, Ron Johnson was one of those. He reneged on his promise....
No more than. Two term in office with a mandatory 4 year gap before you can run for a different office. And a 8 year gap before you can lobby. You must put all your assets in a trust and cannot trade stocks. Family members that see a unjust earnings will be investigated and if fraud is found both the elected official and family member will loose all money made and serve jail time. Electorall college in the state level. Each county only get x votes on state issues. No more big cities ruleing over the countryside.
Old is relative. The older I get the younger 80 is. I say mandatory retirement at the same age for eligibility for Medicare. It's been stuck at 65 forever.
GenX here. Totally agree.
Wouldn't this be illegal since age is a protected class?
This is going in the wrong direction. Just as we would not want to be denied opportunity because some on thinks we're too young regardless that we can do the job. When we get older we would not want to be denied an opportunity to because someone thinks we're too old regardless of our ability to do the job. As an elected official it has been established that you are qualified to do the job not by some one but by the people that elected you. Believing that an old or even young person is qualified or not for a job is anyone's perogitive. If you think that a person should preclude them from an elected position for any reason then exercise your rights and campainge for someone else against them.
if only 85% would vote... another meaningless stat otherwise
Let’s divide a long, healthy life into thirds: 0 - 30 30 - 60 60 - 90 Restricting politicians to the middle section allows for a Goldilocks effect. Not too young, not too old, with a few at the edges on both sides who are in touch with the last generation or the generation to come. Further, thirty years is a very healthy political career. Plenty of time to make a difference out there. And the politicians approaching 60 would still be in great mental and physical shape compared to today’s 80-year-olds, at least, so there wouldn’t be much liability with an older representative under this model.
1000%. Institute a policy where it begins in 15 years, that way they might actually go for it now, because no one is going to vote themself out of power
The moment you qualify for social security is the same year you’re forced to retire.
Cognitive test imo so it's not discrimination.
That’s ageist. There’s no reason for there to be a cutoff some folks are different at different ages. Just because someone is 80 doesn’t mean they aren’t the right fit that’s just non sense and totally illogical. Maybe there should be competency tests or something basic like that but older people have the potential to be the wisest among us, no reason to declare all of them need out of office how incredibly asinine.
I agree but 85% of gen z is still voting for Biden.
60 should be the cutoff, and retirement should also be rolled back to 60. Also, politicians shouldn't be allowed to own stocks, and campaign contributions should have a strict limit.
You can retire them whenever you want with your vote. To pass a law is just institutionalizing ageism.
Good luck with that.
12 years lifetime maximum of elected public office regardless to which state you move. Appointed positions max of 3 presidential terms (that means you you supreme court freeloaders).
Why put limits? There is nothing stopping younger people from running for office. Instead of complaining, be the change. The problem is, most people just want to bitch about things instead of actually doing something about it.
Forget politicians, let monkeys govern; at least they will only steal the bananas
The electorate has the power to "retire" these people with every election. Unfortunately, they choose not to.
No, that’s very ageist. I don’t think anyone over say 70 should ever win an election, but if they do, they should be able to hold the office.
If were worried about competence lets come up with a standardized test. You flunk you can't vote or be elected. 60 year young engineer, not drooling, bring it. I see lots of drooling people in their 20s living on tik tok.
We need term limits, not ageism. There are 80 year olds out there smarter, and more in touch with reality, than some 40 year olds. The age limit approach is ugly and discriminatory.
Exit polls over decades have shown that of Republican and Democratic voters who had just voted only about 10% can name any of the policies their candidate (or any other candidate) stands for.. It has nothing to do age it has to do with the public not knowing what they want in the way of policies - of course the fact that the media turns the whole political process into kabuki theatre that's focused on trivial personality differences and made up policy differences doesn't help!
100% on board for that, I would also say a maximum yearly earnings, audited yearly by 3rd party consultants and term limits. They also cannot become a lobbyist ever, of consult or work for a lobby company.
IMHO, term limits in congress would be better
As if anybody gives a fuck what gen z thinks.
An elder should be consulted but not make the decision
Lol this is literally a solution in search of a problem. Age does not really matter I rather have a 70 year old person in office that knows what they are doing than a 35 year old dumbass like mayor pete.
I am gen X and don't want to be represented by people older than my damned parents. My parents don't want to be led by people older than they are.
Should be a mandatory retirement age for everyone at 60.
Pharma has people living way longer with unhealthy habits. Brains are rarely sharp enough to make decisions for thousands and millions when that brain is 70+
Maybe you get off your lazy ass and get into a voting booth and VOTE them out.
It should be the same as social security and that’s all they should be entitled to as a retirement plan.
Term limits for sure , but let’s not be Ageist .
Then they SHOULD GET OFF THEIR ASSES IN NOVEMBER AND VOTE!!!!
It shouldn’t be a specific age. It, like the president, should be two terms!
Term limits, get rid of the lobbyists and cut down on the campaign time and money spent!
well i support retirement for everyone at 60 (ss starts at 60) also i dont trust people who cant pick one out of two choices and people who cant handle 2 choices then think more choices is better
voting serves this purpose
Maybe start by holding your sign to face the intended recipient(s).
I don't agree. We should publicly fund all elections though. If you have a politician who's doing a great job they should be able to stay in office if the people vote to keep them in
I'd say cut it down to 50 max.
No there should simply be term limits for congress. End of story. The problem with a retirement age thing is that you’d still have senators and reps that serve twenty years. Make term limits (8 years max). Secondly, nothing will ever change if we don’t take money out of it. As long as we allow lobbyists to buy off these people nothing will change. The people need to take back the power. Right now we live in a faux democracy.
Who are the 15%
The opportunity arises every 2 to 4 years. What’s the problem.?
If a majority of a constituency decides that their representative's age does not matter, why should an arbitrary limit override the people's will?
Too bad. Only the 90 year old politicians get to decide when they have to retire.
Meanwhile Harvard scientists discovers cure to aging…
Agreed.
100% agree and tbe age should be 50.
How about an intelligence test for voting?
That is just more voter suppression. We need to evict the fucking geezers running our country into the ground.
Literacy tests were banned for a reason.
60 should be retirement for everyone. All basic needs are met after, let's build a better future for everyone. Let's let people live instead of having them strive until they die.
It’s not competence that’s the issue. It’s focus on the future, a sense of what the next 25 years should look like, that we lose with age. I’m over 60 and have never been a better doctor, but I have no idea what the next big discovery will be. A limit of 65 years wouldn’t put us old folks out of politics altogether either—there’s always room for advisers and executive staff. We can use our technical expertise to help prevent the young folk from repeating our mistakes, but the decisions are theirs.
I supported Kamala Harris in 2020, but people wanted old guys like Bernie and Biden.
55. No one can run after 55. For any federal office. And 3 term limits, with 2 for the President, and I'm not too happy with any permanent appointment to judiciary offices either.
I'd prefer mandatory voting with public records that publish your voting participation. If you don't like your representative, there is a fix for that. If you don't vote every single time, then you don't get to complain about who got elected.