• weeeeum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Yes, aside from their senility, our politicians are simply way too out of touch to comprehend the average American’s issues. Spent most of their life in politics with the easiest 6 figure salary (plus bribes) you can have.

    Granted politicians will probably remain out of touch but I’d like to imagine it’d be better

  • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Not just no, hell no.

    People like to think that the seventies is when you automatically lose your ability to think and do anything useful. That’s bullshit; it’s individual, genetics combined with access to good nutrition, healthcare, etc.

    I used to work as a nurse’s assistant, specifically in home health where the patients were often at home with spouses, and other age peers. I had patients as old as their 90s that could still function mentally just fine, but had physical issues. I had patients older than that too, several just past 100, but they really wouldn’t have been able to be a walmart greeter.

    But even with the patients that did suffer cognitive difficulties, there were plenty of family members and friends that didn’t. Most people suffer only minor cognitive decline in their seventies. Given otherwise good health, there’s no necessity for someone without a diagnosis that would prevent them from doing their job to be forced to retire.

    What we need are term limits, not ageist bullshit. The problem isn’t age, or even a given political bent, it’s the accumulation of power and influence that then becomes a commodity open for purchase, leading to corruption.

    Now, I wouldn’t object to mandatory fitness evaluations, but that’s going to be as corruptible as anything else political. I certainly think some specific diagnoses should exclude someone from making decisions for the entire nation, that affect the entire world, but that’s a tough thing to make happen, much less make work.

    But age? Age is absolutely not a factor in fitness for any public office. Hell, I’m of the mind that none of the elected offices should have minimum ages, beyond a national age of adulthood so that the people in the position aren’t immediately beholden to someone like a parent. Pick whatever arbitrary age you want for that, and we’re good to go as long as it passes muster legally.

    • danc4498@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Maybe don’t bring social security retirement age until it. They already want to raise that. This would just be another excuse to do it.

    • Makhno@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Shit I’d go even lower. Gotta be young enough to have some skin in the game when it comes to the consequences of legislation, etc.

      • shortwavesurfer@monero.town
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Fair enough, you’re less likely to vote for shit policies if you know that you’re going to be living with them. And even if you do vote for shit policies and end up living with them, it was entirely your damn fault. And you just brought it on yourself.

  • heavyboots@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Let’s do it slightly differently, let’s make the mandatory retirement age for political office the median life expectancy age for the entire country. If the politicians, etc can manage to make everyone live longer, they can hold office longer.

    Similarly, take away their separate and different medical coverage and put them on the same Medicare system everyone else in the country has to use.

    • billgamesh@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think they should also be paid using their state’s disability/unemployment system and get food through their state’s EBT system.

  • gregorum@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I think it should be younger. Maybe 65.

    Members of Congress and SCOTUS should also have term limits

  • Fester@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    First I would support campaign finance reform and watch 90% of the problems be solved.

    Then I would tackle the other 10% by making voting more accessible - especially in primaries. Make it so accessible that even young voters bother to do it. That way people will choose younger reps more often.

    So no, I wouldn’t support putting a bandaid on one issue and ignoring the root causes.

  • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    No, I would support it being locked to the national retirement age though, which would be 67 at the moment.

  • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’d support the abolishment of both - term limits of 0, and the move to an actual democracy, which is not what “choose which nigga talks for you” accomplishes

        • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah so direct democracy can work for a town. And that works great until one eyed Phil (who runs a country made up of many towns) comes around and has a bigger army than your little town could put together. You can all meet in your town hall and debate about what to do about old one eyed Phil and his army, for all the good it’ll do ya.

          Edumication thing indeed.

          So is this what libertarians think is a good idea nowadays?