this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2023
960 points (100.0% liked)

politics

25020 readers
2426 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] w00tabaga@lemm.ee 33 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Both him and Biden shouldn’t be in political office, in fact there should be a cutoff and that should be you can’t run after you’re 70. Democrat or Republican people that should be at home retired tending to their garden or fishing shouldn’t be running the country.

It’s scientifically proven your cognitive ability is significantly declining by that age, and not to mention they are almost always out of touch with the modern world we live in.

[–] Neato@kbin.social 11 points 2 years ago (3 children)

It's illegal to discriminate based on older age. This sounds like whataboutism. Always expect someone to bring it back to attack Biden.

[–] Thatpilotguy89@lemm.ee 16 points 2 years ago

If congress can enforce a mandatory retirement age for airline pilots, they can have a mandatory retirement age for anything.

Unfortunately, the people making the rules dont want to put themselves out of a job...

[–] ghariksforge@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Is it discrimination to say "this person no longer has the cognitive capacity to do this job" ?

[–] TheRedSpade@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Not to mention that people who won't be around to see the consequences of new laws shouldn't be making them.

[–] just_change_it@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago

I'd like to see representation in government that fits the demographics that are being represented, more or less. There's no room for change in government though, too few seats and too much money involved. "We've always done it this way" is in charge.

[–] Moyer1666@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I agree, there are plenty of other people from this generation capable of running government. It's time for these people who have been in power for over 30 years to retire.

[–] w00tabaga@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago

After 20-30 years they don’t add anything as a politician imo. There should be a max of 3 term limits in most political offices on the state and federal level.

[–] GentlemanLoser@reddthat.com 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Can you link me to this scientific proof that cognitive abilities are significantly in decline by age 70 please?

[–] w00tabaga@lemm.ee 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

You really need me to give you a link to prove that we decline as we age? Really?

That’s also something you could easily google yourself but I have no problem providing some info to you:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015335/#:~:text=Cognitive%20change%20as%20a%20normal,speed%2C%20decline%20gradually%20over%20time.

More specifically, read the part about “Executive Function”. But the whole thing is worth a read for a good overview.

[–] Hominine@lemonine.hominine.xyz 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There is significant variability in age-related cognitive changes from individual to individual.

Second time I've seen you post this study with little reflection outside your narrative. Cognitive decline, one must assume.

[–] w00tabaga@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago

Well yeah case to case with anything specific is going to be unique, but that is the overall general trend.

This also isn’t one study, it’s a synopsis of lots of data and studies.

Just like you might have the rare 80year old run a 5k, that doesn’t disprove that overall our bodies aren’t physically declining significantly overall by then.

[–] qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I mean, it's not straight science, but have you met people over 70? They are not in their prime when it comes to work performance.

[–] Yendor@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

Depends on the person. Some people are on an obvious decline in their 50s. Others are still quick as a whip in their 70s.

[–] Zorque@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Most of them don't have the kind of medical care you get when you're a Senator/President.

[–] VanillaGorilla@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Ok, fair. But Reagan's cognitive ability didn't really benefit much from all that care, did it?

[–] Behaviorbabe@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago

Not only do we decline mentally and physically (naturally) there’s also the increased risk of dementia.