this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
535 points (99.3% liked)

politics

19274 readers
1803 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Rep. Annie Kuster, a 68-year-old Democrat from New Hampshire, retiring after 12 years in Congress, cites a desire to “set a better example” and create space for younger leaders.

Her decision comes amid growing public concern about aging politicians, with about a quarter of lawmakers over 70. Kuster’s successor will be Maggie Goodlander, 38.

Democrats are increasingly elevating younger leaders following setbacks in 2024, which some attribute to the perception of aging leadership, including President Biden’s controversial reelection bid.

Calls for age limits remain popular but face significant legislative hurdles.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 days ago (1 children)

What moral quandary? No one but pedophiles complains about the fact that age minimums for certain activities exist. Cognitive function is a bell curve and old people are on the back end of it. That's just a fact of life. What is controversial about it?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Well, with age also comes wisdom, so forcing people out when they might be hitting a stride is rather immoral (and foolish) if you ask me.

It'd be one thing if we were to start applying cognitive tests beyond a certain age...I'd hate to lose the likes of Bernie just based on a number. If someone is sharp and able-bodied well into their nineties or even later, what is the point in pushing them out?

But again, as I say, even this line of reasoning is rather static and fixed in time. This kind of discussion may age very badly if/when age extension/age reversal comes online, and I don't want us setting something up that will likely come off extremely anachronistic just based on one of the last remaining prejudices that, at this point in time, is still permissible and even fashionable in polite company - and that is ageism. The rules of government are rather famous for not keeping up with the times and it seems foolhardy to try to put something into place that may very quickly become ridiculous.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

With age comes wisdom, but at our politician's ages, so do issues like dementia and Alzheimer's

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Possibly, but also maybe not. You have to treat people as individuals. That's what cognitive testing would be good for, in any case.

Bernie is 83. He'll be 89 when he most likely retires. I say as long as he is of sound mind and body, I want people like him in there. If he was forced out at some arbitrary cutoff, we would have missed out on decades of his input.

Not everyone ages equally.