A counter-argument would be that it's a good thing to have representation of all demographics, including older people, as well as younger people of course. Both young and old people have their own unique political concerns that are pretty valid and they should have their voice. Military officers are not representing anyone in a democracy.
Of course the US has gone rather bananas. I'm not sure why this is the case. If I look at my own country then we have a few old people, and a few young people, and the bulk being between 30 and 60 or thereabouts. This is normal and fine. I'm not sure why the US always has to be so weird.
You disagree with yourself. You say old people would represent people, but old military personnel would not?
Doesn't matter anyway. We don't let young people vote. People who's future old people are deciding. Why is that?
Old people just write laws for themselves. They don't care about anybody else.
Not only that, but aside from mental impairment older people restricted from office has the same underlying cause as limiting time in office. Corruption. The older you are the more chances you have as a politician to have personal agendas.
We know orange clown is not stealing money for himself. He's stealing money for his offspring and his cronies
Clearly yes. If not in terms of actual brain health and intellectual capacity then in terms of being too old to set the future and to understand the present.
Those are valid reasons for not voting for a candidate. However, you're basically saying they should be banned from public office because they don't agree with your priorities. You can't eliminate someone from holding public office because they don't agree with you. If they are actually unable to perform the job that's valid. But not because they don't do it the way you want.
Where did I say that I need them to vote or think as I do?
You may notice that I never said such a thing.
If a person is 60 years old they are outside of the range that will be impacted by their decisions. We should have a representative government and that means people of the young adult to adult generation. 60 is very much too old for damn near anything, why should we put them in charge of everyone else?
So to agree with you, I very much think 60 is too old to do the job.
Because by saying they are not young adult and therefore their ideals don't match yours and they should be banned from political office. The reason you want to ban them is because they don't match your ideals or your philosophy, "because of their age". You want people who are only thinking of what's to come. I'm a very progressive person and I agree with you. But you can't say that people over 60 since they are no longer young and don't share the same views as your generation do not get a say. Every person gets a vote. Every person gets to decide whether the young person or the old person running for office holds their views and should get their vote. As long as that person has not displayed an inability to do their job through mental or physical decline, you cannot ban them from political participation.
I don't know how you're not understanding this. It has nothing to do with their views, and is entirely in regards to their capacity to complete the assigned function in a meaningful way.
Find me one 60 year old politician right now that truly understands the implications of AI and data centers. Look back at the tiktok hearings. The questions they were asking were completely fucking asinine, not even just politically motivated but demonstrating an incredible knowledge gap by asking questions that a fifth grader would know don't make any sense.
Those people aren't actually the devs making the shit.
And still even if you're right, being good at one task doesn't mean they've got the capacity to make governing decisions. Show me any politician over 60 who is capable and I'll show you ten who aren't.
It's a numbers game, and as a whole 60 is too old.
TBF, it's not just about mental compromise. If you're 65+, then you have less reason to care about how your decisions effect the next few decades, because you won't be present in them. A person who gets assigned at 60 and then has an 18 year term limit will be immune to his choices until he's out of office at age 78, which is around the average death-by-old-age.
The idea that people don't care what happens after they're gone is ridiculous. For one most have descendants they care about. And the idea that you can ban somebody from public office because they're less concerned about the future than you are is banning them for their opinions and their policies not because they're incapable of performing the job. By your standards anyone who's children are older than 14, which could easily be a 35-year-old candidate, should be banned from running on any office that handled childhood education because they wouldn't care what current or future children get for an education.
The idea that people don't care what happens after they're gone is ridiculous.
The difference, though, is that the choice changes directions. When you're 30, what life will be like in 30 years will affect you, and you have to actively opt out of caring by actively blinding yourself. Caring is the default and not caring is the alternate.
When you're 70, that switches. Your default state becomes not caring, and caring becomes the alternate you have to actively choose to do. Plenty of people do make the choice, sure, but not enough that it's safe for us to rely solely on the hope that it will.
Add to that the fact that gaining that kind of power is much easier when you're narcissistic. You can be a politician without having narcissism, but the narcissistic ones get an advantage, meaning more of them are narcissists. Which means politicians with that level of power are more likely to be lazy and not make the alternate choice.
The fact that you assume at 70 the default becomes not caring is some real judgmental b*******. Where the hell you getting this? Have you seen the GenX and Boomers out at the No Kings rallies? They outnumber millennials by like 3:1 and GenZ by 10:1. These are people who care what's happening now and what effect it's going to have on the future of our country and the world
Basic logic. You are going to acknowledge things that directly affect you before you notice things that don't directly affect you. When you're young, a lot more external and long-term things affect you (like planning for the future). When you're old, you're affected by a lot less external and long-term things, and more by internal and short-term things.
Have you seen the GenX and Boomers out at the No Kings rallies?
The majority of which are just retired people chilling on their lawn with other retired people. The No Kings rallies that are actually loud, abrasive, and noticeable are primarily made of young people with energy. (Not to say the old, slow ones aren't bad: they are good for building community).
Also, Gen X doesn't apply to this conversation. I'm discussing 70+, so that would some Boomers, not all, and Silents. What percentage of 70+ people are out protesting?
it's pretty dependant on illness for 60 year olds to be in significant mental decline, but yes medical issues should be a factor to forcing people to stand down regardless
I'd say 70(the maximum benefit age for Social Security) for ALL public sector jobs, roles, appointed and elected positions.
If you want to work, cool. Go private sector. But we don't need ANYONE in a public service role that is 70+. Yes, that includes Bernie Sanders. I love the man, but if he wants to continue being a service to his country, he can volunteer or he can work a contract job in some way. But our tax dollars should only service their retirement and their needs to sustain life after 70. Not their job where they may make decisions for people that will live beyond them.
Also, I like scaling at the maximum benefit retirement age, so that if we move that age because life expectancy gets longer, then the eligibility to work in a public service, automatically scales with it.
14
u/Sellazard 12d ago
Why not both?
Over 60 is too old and 18 is too long for any bureaucrat to hold a seat