• Luke@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Politicians need mandatory retirements. We need someone under the age of 65.

    Ah yes, ageism.

    There’s nobody over 65 who is a good political leader. Nobody under 65 is a bad political leader. Everyone immediately turns into a useless chump on their 65th birthday. They should all be puréed into a drink to sustain the rest of us.

    • pyre@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      it’s not ageism to expect care for the future from people who are going to expect to see it. we’ve already seen that boomers could care less what happens after they’re gone, as long as they absolutely ruin whatever they can in the mean time.

    • Glytch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      They should all be puréed into a drink to sustain the rest of us.

      That’s just wasteful, you need to scrap them first so you can extract the valuable metals from their medical implants. Then you butcher them for any good meat. Then you puree the rest (apart from the brain due to prions) to feed to children.

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      You can’t be a good president if you’re over 65.

      You can’t be a good president if you’re under 65.

      You can’t be a good president.

    • kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I don’t think it’s ageist to believe that someone who represents this country should be able to accurately understand that wants and needs of the average American. At a certain point someone becomes too old to understand the average American, they rely on their own personal experiences which may be out of date.