this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2023
1510 points (98.2% liked)

politics

18147 readers
5634 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Over three-fourths of Americans think there should be a maximum age limit for elected officials, according to a CBS News/YouGov survey.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If there were age limits it should be well below the point of any cognitive decline, because it's also about having younger people in power who can think and plan on a scale of several decades, because that's how long they have left to live.

I'm thinking like 50.

[–] TechyDad@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

The problem with setting the age limit too low is that people of that age range might not feel represented.

To give an example, I'm 48. One of my upcoming concerns is retirement. Will it be able to afford to retire? Will I need to work part time after "retiring" just to survive?

If every politician in a position of power was too young, retirement might not seem to them to be an important issue. After all, when you're 30, retirement seems forever away. They could enact policies that are great for people under 40 but devastating to people approaching retirement.

That's why, while I definitely think politicians like McConnell and Feinstein should have retired long ago, I'm leery about setting too low of a forced retirement age.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Also, you do want people with experience there. Having a rotating door of only young people doesn't really help anything.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The door wouldn't be rotating anymore than it is now.

And what's your source on young people not helping anything? All the times in US history that we made the most progress were under young Democrat presidents.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I didn't say young people don't help anything. I said having only new young people all the time doesn't help. Having people with experience is a good thing.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Do you think JFK had no experience? He became president at 47. Did he "not help", as you put it?

Your claim is not only vague but has also been presented without any reasoning.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Why are you trying to argue? It was a general statement I made, I'm not presenting a case study.
Chill out, goddamn.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Because the statement you made doesn't have sound reasoning.

In other words, you're wrong.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Just because you're missing the point it doesn't mean the other person is wrong.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 1 points 10 months ago

Ok let's hear the reasoning then.

[–] Rodeo@lemmy.ca 3 points 10 months ago

I'm 31 and I'm pretty fuckin concerned with retirement. Because if I'm not now, I'll probably never be able to.