If they engaged with their voters, we wouldn’t have any democratic representatives over age of 65. Anything past that is just posturing and self enrichment
Edit: wow I left a generally agreeable comment and fucked off for the day and apparently a lot of people want representatives older than 65? Yet no one can say why that’s a good thing they only bring up Bernie who’s an independent and not a democrat. Some of you don’t know what you want other than to shit on people online and it’s laughable
Again, you really love telling others what they are saying, don’t you?
Here you are, ironically trying to catch me one of your gotcha fails while not even acknowledging the hypocrisy of your argument that’s blindly in favor of the original statement:
All democratic Representatives,
Since you clearly have difficulty understanding things others say before you get your chance to rewrite their words for your little straw men…
What I was implying- was that it must have meant that the age limit should be set for ONLY democratic representatives, yes?
Which then it seems to go without saying, based on your poor ability to see what the argument even is- that one is to assume that the suggested age limit wouldn’t apply to only those you consider to be in your ring. It was very kind of you to remove all doubt from what would have normally been a suspicion.
I don’t know… seems a bit hypocritical if you ask me. But I’m sure you’ll change everything I’ve said here to mean something entirely different.
What I was implying- was that it must have meant that the age limit should be set for ONLY democratic representatives, yes?
Yes. Considering how democrats have spent the past few decades fighting progressives and not republicans, the democratic party is run by inflexible old centrists whose only concern is enriching themselves. The party should implement an age limit. If republicans want to be run by idiotic old fossils, let them. It’s to their detriment, as it has been to democrats’ detriment. If anyone can be elected as an independent despite being old, more power to them.
But I’m sure you’ll change everything I’ve said here to mean something entirely different.
I’m sure you’ll conveniently misunderstand this comment as well.
What’s with the ageism? I want Democratic representatives of any age, as long as they have the right policies and they are of sound mind. People over the age of 65 will be just fine with me, thanks.
Sure but age limits are in place in a million different institutions. If it’s not ageism that you can’t run for office when you’re 16 then it’s not ageism when you have an age limit for representatives. My point is representatives should represent the general population and should be able to at least understand the issues of the current age. Meanwhile the aging congress struggles with basic internet understanding so we don’t have regulations that should have been standard since the fucking 90s. It’s 2025 a person who can’t comprehend internet basics like email encryption has 0 chance of making an informed choice on crypto currency or government backdoors and their implications.
I feel like a broken record here, but the huge uptick in ageism I see in relation to politics seems like it’s not going to, ahem, age well given the amount of things I keep seeing about slowing down/reversing aging…
I mean, yeah, it sounds kind of silly until it doesn’t. I remember reading about/thinking about things like AI (even if it’s not AGI - things like LLMs are here and disrupting the shit out of things). Same with self-driving cars. And yeah, neither of these things are perfect, but they are having an effect on society - people I know mostly got very smug and dismissive about these notions just 20 years ago. They are rather quiet about them now. I think the same thing is true about aging. Even if the breakthroughs are extremely mild and stay that way for decades, maybe even forever, suppose average healthspan is increased even 5 years. That will make (upper) age limits look very myopic and dated.
It’s not about how long you live so much as getting stuck in your ways. Old people don’t learn new things and adapt the way young people do. Humans solidify the way they do things in their 20s, make some fine tuning in their 30s/40s, and then pretty much stick to those habits for the rest of their life. With the way technology is progressing we can’t have stagnant people leading an evolving society.
There are exceptions to every rule but that doesn’t mean statistics aren’t valuable information to base decisions on. Do you want people stuck in the past making laws about the future?
I hate that’d you’re downvoted and no response because this is the right take. We have age limits already but old people don’t want those to apply to them because … no reason they just want to continue holding power
If they engaged with their voters, we wouldn’t have any democratic representatives over age of 65. Anything past that is just posturing and self enrichment
Edit: wow I left a generally agreeable comment and fucked off for the day and apparently a lot of people want representatives older than 65? Yet no one can say why that’s a good thing they only bring up Bernie who’s an independent and not a democrat. Some of you don’t know what you want other than to shit on people online and it’s laughable
So… Bernie Sanders is posturing and out of touch?
Cricket cricket
Bernie Sanders is not a democrat.
I knew one of you would come along to move the goalposts.
So now he’s a democrat because it’s convenient for you?
Man you love telling others what they are saying, don’t you?
Your entire comment history is you editing the words of others. I wonder why that is……
Hey, you wanted to disqualify Sanders from public service on the grounds that he is both old and a democrat.
He’s not a democrat. And he is neither posturing nor out of touch, largely as a result of not tying himself to a party with no credibility.
Again, you really love telling others what they are saying, don’t you?
Here you are, ironically trying to catch me one of your gotcha fails while not even acknowledging the hypocrisy of your argument that’s blindly in favor of the original statement:
All democratic Representatives,
Since you clearly have difficulty understanding things others say before you get your chance to rewrite their words for your little straw men…
What I was implying- was that it must have meant that the age limit should be set for ONLY democratic representatives, yes?
Which then it seems to go without saying, based on your poor ability to see what the argument even is- that one is to assume that the suggested age limit wouldn’t apply to only those you consider to be in your ring. It was very kind of you to remove all doubt from what would have normally been a suspicion.
I don’t know… seems a bit hypocritical if you ask me. But I’m sure you’ll change everything I’ve said here to mean something entirely different.
Yes. Considering how democrats have spent the past few decades fighting progressives and not republicans, the democratic party is run by inflexible old centrists whose only concern is enriching themselves. The party should implement an age limit. If republicans want to be run by idiotic old fossils, let them. It’s to their detriment, as it has been to democrats’ detriment. If anyone can be elected as an independent despite being old, more power to them.
I’m sure you’ll conveniently misunderstand this comment as well.
What’s with the ageism? I want Democratic representatives of any age, as long as they have the right policies and they are of sound mind. People over the age of 65 will be just fine with me, thanks.
Sure but age limits are in place in a million different institutions. If it’s not ageism that you can’t run for office when you’re 16 then it’s not ageism when you have an age limit for representatives. My point is representatives should represent the general population and should be able to at least understand the issues of the current age. Meanwhile the aging congress struggles with basic internet understanding so we don’t have regulations that should have been standard since the fucking 90s. It’s 2025 a person who can’t comprehend internet basics like email encryption has 0 chance of making an informed choice on crypto currency or government backdoors and their implications.
You gotta draw the line somewhere. Retirement age seems like as good a place as any.
Why do you have to draw the line somewhere?
I feel like a broken record here, but the huge uptick in ageism I see in relation to politics seems like it’s not going to, ahem, age well given the amount of things I keep seeing about slowing down/reversing aging…
I mean, yeah, it sounds kind of silly until it doesn’t. I remember reading about/thinking about things like AI (even if it’s not AGI - things like LLMs are here and disrupting the shit out of things). Same with self-driving cars. And yeah, neither of these things are perfect, but they are having an effect on society - people I know mostly got very smug and dismissive about these notions just 20 years ago. They are rather quiet about them now. I think the same thing is true about aging. Even if the breakthroughs are extremely mild and stay that way for decades, maybe even forever, suppose average healthspan is increased even 5 years. That will make (upper) age limits look very myopic and dated.
Because mentally incompetent people shouldn’t be in charge of steering the government. Mental competency drops fast at higher ages.
Because I only want people who have a bested interest in the future to be the ones crafting it.
You shouldn’t be allowed to vote or drive after a specific age because you become a danger to people around you.
It’s not about how long you live so much as getting stuck in your ways. Old people don’t learn new things and adapt the way young people do. Humans solidify the way they do things in their 20s, make some fine tuning in their 30s/40s, and then pretty much stick to those habits for the rest of their life. With the way technology is progressing we can’t have stagnant people leading an evolving society.
There are exceptions to every rule but that doesn’t mean statistics aren’t valuable information to base decisions on. Do you want people stuck in the past making laws about the future?
So you’d be fine with a child holding the role? After all why draw a line. Age relates to capability on both ends.
I hate that’d you’re downvoted and no response because this is the right take. We have age limits already but old people don’t want those to apply to them because … no reason they just want to continue holding power