• Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Thats an awful lot of work thats going to cost taxpayer money when “move over, gramps, let the next batch have a try” is completely free.

    Who cares if there are still a couple good old people? There are also good young people chomping at the bit to take over. People who aren’t hopelessly out of touch with reality and the rest of the population.

    People shouldn’t be in government past an age where they likely wont be alive for the next decade of consequences from their actions. I’d personally lower the cutoff to like 64. They got their chance to set policy, let people who will live in the world they are making be the ones who steer the boat.

    If we try that and it ends up not working, we can reassess. But until we try we’ll never know because those people aim to die in office, and burn the place down on the way out.

    • DMCMNFIBFFF@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Let’s make it 60.

      What decent president didn’t finish his term over 60?

      Obama turned 60 in 2021, Clinton in 2006, and Carter in 1984.

      Fidel Castro turned 60 in 1986.

    • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      “move over, gramps, let the next batch have a try”

      That is an option the voters always have.

      Honestly, I think the ageism thing is just red herring for the elites to use to further atomize the population.