1571
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Beaver@lemmy.ca 39 points 2 months ago

That requirement is so ageist as the brain is fully developed at age 26

[-] 4am@lemm.ee 57 points 2 months ago

The idea is to have some experience in politics in lower positions before taking on the hot seat.

[-] emax_gomax@lemmy.world 30 points 2 months ago

I feel like mandating a certain number of years in some managerial governmental position would be more effective. Trump is basically a living example of how to get around that. Honestly a lot of democracy kinda assumes people elect competent and honest leaders and a lot of humanity are just brainwashed morons so we're stuck with what we got :/.

[-] Nachorella 24 points 2 months ago

That's a great point. AOC has more experience than Trump did when elected.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 19 points 2 months ago

I'm just upset that there's no maximum age limit. If they are fine with a minimum why isn't there a maximum?

[-] krelvar@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago
[-] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 13 points 2 months ago

What a joke that turned out to be

[-] 4am@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Yeah just means we get experienced swindlers

[-] Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

Yeah, that's the idea. But then you have people like Trump come in and not have any experience.

[-] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago

“The idea” no longer means jack shit, unfortunately.

[-] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 47 points 2 months ago

It's stupid that there's a minimum and not a maximum

[-] ceenote@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago

Getting so old your brain starts melting was less of an issue back then.

[-] stoly@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

You were an experienced master or your craft at the age of 35 all the way 250 years ago. People made it to their 80s but your life expectancy was much lower. Basically 35 was the perfect age.

What we need is an amendment to make this reflect modern life.

[-] RidderSport@feddit.org 4 points 2 months ago

What you need is a new constitution. That shit is completely outdated.

[-] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Remember how we still have legalized slavery? Maybe we could amend that amendment.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yeah... As it stands right now our first priority needs to be eliminating the ultra wealthys influence otherwise that amendment will be changed to "all non-wealthy debtors, convicted criminals, and the unemployed can be used as slaves."

[-] AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You were an experienced master or your craft at the age of 35

Yep. Gotta figure someone who's 35 has been around the block, seen some things, knows some things, the office of POTUS doesn't seem like one you should be able to run for right out of high school. Oh, but imagine if we could. I'm sure it would be hilarious to put a high school graduate in office. Especially a Gen Z kid lmao.

[-] Freefall@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I'd support (HALF median life expectancy ±15 years determine at the start of the election year). Gives you a middleing generation so the extremes are not super underrepresented and it makes sure they have some life under their belt.

Edit: added "HALF"

[-] AngryMob@lemmy.one 3 points 2 months ago

Yeah no. Look at what those numbers would actually be. Median is 70-80 depending on country and sex. I dont want a 95 year old president when they enter office... And 55 as a minimum is far beyond "life under their belt"

[-] Freefall@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Oh I meant half the median life expectancy. My brain didn't brain good as I typed it out. So 40ish ±15 in your example. Even ±10 would be fine.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 19 points 2 months ago

True. There's this fun quirk of US law, though, that makes ageism against young people completely fine and dandy!

You can discriminate against people for being young all you want. That's the Gerontocracy in action..

[-] Furbag@lemmy.world 15 points 2 months ago

Absolutely. Housing crisis in full swing here and yet 55+ communities are somehow still legal. Infuriating that it works to the benefit of the old fucks by earmarking plenty of available units for only them, but when the young people want to get rid of it so they can have a shot at property ownership too, suddenly you're an ageist.

[-] Beaver@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 months ago

And some old people lash out at me for stating the system is unfair. They need to learn to pass the torch.

[-] drcobaltjedi@programming.dev 17 points 2 months ago

What? Are you saying a bunch of racist slave holders might have also been ageist? Complaing about "kids these days"?

[-] solrize@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Then the fully-developed brain is just 9 years old when the person is 35! Should the requirement be higher? Semi-kidding.

[-] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Ah, so that's why as we all know everyone above 26 is perfectly adult and competent

Edit: My point was not very evident but that study is not as clear as people thinks it is on the fact that brains are fully developed at 25. They probably keep developing for much longer. But it's not an excuse to exclude people from politics

this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
1571 points (98.9% liked)

News

22831 readers
4168 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS