this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2025
102 points (99.0% liked)
Politics
10859 readers
196 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think that a hard age limit is good, and has more to do with not having people in charge whose age separates them from the people whose lives their decisions are altering. Yes, there are other things separating politicians from the negative effects of their actions as well, but those can and should be dealt with as well, and aren't a reason not to solve the age issue.
I think the cutoff should be standard retirement age, so 65 in the US.
67 now for probably the majority. How do you deal with politicians who decline earlier than that? And why can't we use the techniques to handle that for everyone instead of a limit?
I am pretty certain there is already a process for removing people proven mentally unfit.
Because that's solving for a different problem.
Over the decades of seeing how elderly politicians barely function in their position but not only remain but get reelected, and good lord the situation right now... I don't think there is.