...anyone above 75 is not all there, plain and simple.
Yeesh, ageism, plain and simple.
But yeah, Grassley needs to hang up the spurs.
Yeesh, ageism, plain and simple.
But yeah, Grassley needs to hang up the spurs.
we take it for granted that someone below the age of 15-ish in the United States shouldn't be behind the wheel of an automobile, but that's not universally true. We try 18 year olds as adults, and that's not universally true, either.
It isn't a far leap to presume that people past a certain age meets the same psychological and mental/cognitive decline as the average person that age without testing.
You wouldn't expect a 95 year old to be eagle-eyed and athletic, to presume that their age isn't a deficit whatsoever is ageist from another perspective.
If I saw a person using a wheelchair I wouldn't wait for them to tell me that they needed a ramp for the staircase at the restaurant -- this too is -ist, but I see no real problem with it as a wheelchair user myself.
Somewhat similarly : the amount of 'with-it' and sober 95 year olds that I have met in real life makes me really question their fitness as an important member of a government group. Just like the presidency, these roles should probably be qualified into by participants with more than just votes.
If you're a 95 year old that passes the mental health and physical health examinations, more power to you , welcome to <government group>.
Not just because your faculties aren't what they once were, but because you have no stake in the outcome of your decisionmaking.
Just look at Trump and Biden speeches VS Bush or Obama
It’s in the definition. Words have meaning.
Either way, those same old folks are the ones who’d need to sign off on the rules banning their existence and I don’t see them doing that.
So who are the idiots exactly?
Personally, I think it’s the folks who think more rules will make a difference against someone who is explicitly great at violating rules and getting away with it. While pretending to be a moron.
(Or rather make them take responsibility, in the case of voters who insist on electing Trumps, Reagans, Bidens, and Feinsteins simply because those are the candidates they've heard about, due to their having been around the longest.)
If no one can unseat the king, they’re still the king.
And after all, if they really are as dumb and incompetent as you say that should be easy eh?
Well, in theory, we weren't supposed to have kings here, but it appears that the voters are going to insist on one.
And after all, if they really are as dumb and incompetent as you say that should be easy eh?
That's my usual response to Trumpers complaining about Democrats in my own state's legislature. I have to say, though, that it doesn't work any better for me than it will for you.
All of them? No. But I also could introduce you to plenty of 25 year old's that aren't "agile and flexible enough, mentally to perform these positions". And it's often not even "mental agility" that is the problem with people in power, it's corruption, greed, and just plain old hate that is the problem. Those things don't have any age limits except maybe below 6 years old, and even then I've met some pretty nasty, spoiled toddlers.
There are vanishingly-few 25-year-olds in national office, certainly not in proportion to their chunk of the overall population. But bringing them up at all is beside the point. The contention at hand is that there are too many elderly people, who are beyond their ability to perform adequately, in positions of power. If you would like to address that, feel free. But please stay on topic.
Well thank [deity] for that, because many of them aren't fit for it. Neither are 75 year olds, but age doesn't really play that much of a factor - it's the people voting to put shitheads in positions of power no matter their age that are causing this damage in the first place.
>> "Muh ageism" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for these kinds of conversations.
>There are vanishingly-few 25-year-olds in national office, certainly not in proportion to their chunk of the overall population. But bringing them up at all is beside the point.
Yes, it is the point - you made it the point with your "muh ageism" quip. I simply pointed out that age doesn't make a difference, but greed, corruption, and hate do.
>The contention at hand is that there are too many elderly people, who are beyond their ability to perform adequately, in positions of power.
There are also old people in power that are not "beyond their ability to perform adequately", and that's also a very subjective goalpost you're setting. Some of those shitty old politicians are doing exactly what their shitty constituents want them to, even if they are just holding the pen while someone younger moves their hand.
>But please stay on topic.
You made this about "muh ageism" not me, so all ages are fair to comment about. Shitty 25 year olds are actually worse than shitty 75 year olds, because shitty 25 year olds will be around much longer doing much more harm than a shitty 75 year old politician could. And again, it has nothing to do with age, and everything to do about corruption, greed, and hate. Those things are ageless.