A recent health scare for Mitch McConnell has raised concerns about the age of America’s politicians.

  • spider@lemmy.nz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    Too owned is the bigger problem.

    Hell, Bernie’s old, but he still has his marbles.

    • andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s both. If you don’t have term limits, that considerably reduces the risk of a newbie with morals coming in, rejecting your lobbying money, and putting your whole operation in jeopardy. If you can keep them around for a long time, they gain power as they gain seniority and so do you.

      • spider@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        In theory, yes.

        In practice, look at the term-limited Florida Legislature. They’re every bit as corrupt. New faces, but same owners.

  • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Woohoo… A whopping four people interviewed. That said, it’s interesting that the BBC has a Republican and two independents saying there should be some kind of disqualifier, like a term limit or competency tests, while the Democrat’s statement seemed to amount to, “age is just a number”. That doesn’t seem to track with what I’ve seen. From what I’ve seen, very few people are saying, “age is just a number” in the context of politics anymore (I’ve legitimately been seeing republicans starting to question not just Biden, but other elderly politicians, regardless of party).

  • deweydecibel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Voters weigh in”

    You mean like how they do every other November? When they put those geezers in office?

    • stopthatgirl7@kbin.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      People tend to just vote for the incumbent, which is how we’ve got senators so old they’re stroking out on camera and have conservators, because they refuse to yield power or retire. This is why we need term limits.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        If not term limits we really should have age maximums to go with the minimums that already exist. People over 70 shouldn’t be making policy decisions they likely won’t be alive to see tye affects of.

      • Kbobabob@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s just lazy and not a good excuse IMO. If people actually wanted change they would fight for it.

        • stopthatgirl7@kbin.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s the thing. Most people don’t. Most people are actually fine with the status quo, and figure their district is doing ok, so leave it as-is. Folks tend to think it’s other places that are the problem.

        • elevenfingerfrk@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          People don’t want change. They want stability and to not starve. If those two qualifiers are met then voters don’t really care what the government does and they’re not inclined to vote incumbents out.

        • Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Many people have simply given up. They see the government as trash with nothing that can be done to change it.

        • escapesamsara
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Since Obama, that’s a bit of a problem. If your incumbent doesn’t scare non-voters from the other side into voting, they are logically the better vote than a “radical” newcomer. Obama proved there is a ridiculously large contingent of people that will entirely upend their entire political, economic, and social beliefs if faced with a possibility of a candidate that triggers a particular phobia or hate inside them.

  • Igotz80HDnImWinning@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Can’t imagine it has anything to do with all the laws that disenfranchise college students and young adults not living in the same town as their parents.

    • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Seriously how the fuck do I get out this small town T-T
      I was gonna go to state school, cuz I can afford it, but it’s down the street like 30 minutes. And that town sucks just as badly.
      So I just… didn’t. 🥲

    • elevenfingerfrk@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The gerontocracy runs the political parties. The party determines the candidates. You will rarely see a candidate on your ballot that wasn’t approved by them. And they will only approve of other old people and those that agree with their policies… which are inherently conservative in nature.

  • HurlingDurling@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think the issue is that politicians are old or not. You may be old but still have fresh ideas. The problem is that without term limits those fresh ideas become stagnant and start to smell of prune juice farts and old tapioca pudding.

  • regalia@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    John Schreiner is an independent who has voted for Republicans in roughly 60% of elections. He voted for Democrat Joe Biden in 2020.

    Oh you know a bad opinion is coming…

    • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, how dare someone change their views over time instead of being born and raised with the same views as you?

      • regalia@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That has nothing to do with how you’re raised. At that age you’ve had more then enough time to form an educated opinion. He choose to be an enlightened centralist.

        Like do you think at that age he’s not capable of turning on the TV, seeing the terrible rage filled shit Republicans are doing and thinks “Oh I was raised this way, makes sense to me!”.

        • TheRealKuni@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          At that age you’ve had more then enough time to form an educated opinion. He choose to be an enlightened centralist.

          I’m rather left (especially for the USA), but I wasn’t always that way. I was raised very conservative. My statistics wouldn’t be very different from this gentleman, and I also call myself an independent because I don’t care to be tied to a political party like some kind of sports team.

          Yet you would assume I would have garbage opinions without knowing anything about me simply by hearing my voting history and party affiliation.

          That’s foolishness on your part.

          • regalia@literature.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You changed your opinion after life experience right? I’m going to assume you moved that direction before the age of 42 and didn’t stay “centrist” considering you’re confidently say you’re more left wing.