this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
1573 points (98.9% liked)

News

36000 readers
2585 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


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


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Beaver@lemmy.ca 40 points 2 years ago (6 children)

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

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 58 points 2 years ago (6 children)

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

[–] emax_gomax@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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@lemmy.sdf.org 25 points 2 years ago

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

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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 4 points 2 years ago
[–] balderdash9@lemmy.zip 14 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What a joke that turned out to be

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

Yeah just means we get experienced swindlers

[–] Sweetpeaches69@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years 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 years ago

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

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 47 points 2 years ago (3 children)

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

[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

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

[–] stoly@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] FordBeeblebrox@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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 years ago (1 children)

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 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 years ago (2 children)

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 years 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 years 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 years 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 years 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 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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