this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2026
444 points (98.5% liked)

Political Videos

423 readers
11 users here now

For sharing interesting / important political videos from around the Web! Rules

  1. Videos only (aside from meta posts flagged with [META])
  2. Follow the global Mastodon.World rules and the Lemmy.World TOS while posting and commenting.
  3. Don't be a jerk
  4. No advertising
  5. Non-political videos should go to !videos@lemmy.world
  6. Avoid clickbait titles. (Tip: Use dearrow)
  7. Link directly to the video source and not for example an embedded video in an article or tracked sharing link.
  8. Duplicate posts may be removed
  9. AI generated content must be tagged with "[AI] …" ^Discussion^

Note: bans may apply to both !videos@lemmy.world and !politicalvideos@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Aljernon@lemmy.today 39 points 2 months ago (3 children)

Beyond just Trump, being an elected official should have a strictly enforced retirement age. I'm saying no one over 65.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 33 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Eh, the age limit should be the same as the general age of pension, and it should only apply for being able to be voted in.

This means that if you get voted in at 65, than you are able to serve that term, but nothing longer.

[–] Echolynx@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

And what of appointed officials, like Supreme Court justices?

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I just had a look at the equivalent of the US suppreme court here, "Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen", and the officers of the court serve until retirement.

Seems resonable to me.

[–] Echolynx@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It is the same here. But they often decide to "retire" at death, i.e., lifelong tenure.

[–] stoy@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, forced retirement at the national retirement age?

[–] Echolynx@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

Oh my bad, I misread earlier. Yeah, it should be forced, but here it is not.

[–] Aljernon@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago

I think SC justices should have terms. Make em long terms if you'd like but still limits. And again, no one over 65.

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Weak. I'm calling for Logan's Run numbers. Everyone over 30 get out of office.

Or 21, if you liked the book better.

[–] Aljernon@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago

"Don't trust anyone over 30"

[–] D_C@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

65 is too old. 55 is ok. 60 is acceptable but pushing it, and only if the job they are affected for lasts 4ish years

And I'm in the above age brackets, btw.
Most people in my age range have no fucking idea how to run a washing machine, so they deffo shouldn't be allowed to run governments or councils etc etc.
Age these old bastards out so they go and fuck up their garden rather than fucking up the whole world.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

It's not just the decrepit mind, but the decrepit values. They don't care about the long run. All gerontocracies need to end.

[–] Aljernon@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago

I was thinking not “elected” no later than 65 but forced to retired NO LATER than their 65th birthday. So a presidential candidate no older than 60, for example.