Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

redditor420_69 t1_iycmqhn wrote

It was stupid to elect someone who at least hasn’t turned 25 yet lol. They still got that underdeveloped brain

14

DMala t1_iycozh2 wrote

That might be part of it, but the real issue was that this mf thought he was Buddy Cianci.

63

somegridplayer t1_iycprzz wrote

It was stupid to elect a known grifter that was trying to shake down businesses. Not electing a 25 year old.

52

Hilarias_Glucose_Cup t1_iycn310 wrote

I've been on a "I'm not voting for anyone over the age of 60 from this point forward" push but this is also a good reminder that you probably should not go too crazy with those theories. Maybe 35 to 60 is the sweet spot, enough life and professional experience to be competent but also not so entrenched to be overwhelmed by self interest...

25

StalePieceOfBread t1_iyd3ifu wrote

Age is less important than class. If someone is 30 and pushing bourgeois politics vs someone who's 70 pushing working class politics (and has an actual record of doing shit, not just talking a big game) I back the geezer.

10

[deleted] t1_iycy2ys wrote

[deleted]

6

RevengencerAlf t1_iyd87zl wrote

No one is saying that they are exempt. But there is a reasonable floor where most people have "fully matured" to whatever level they personally are going to.

Nobody at 23 has the life experience and humility to run an entire town effectively.

​

An upper ceiling is a lot iffier for sure. I think in general we should try to avoid very old people who may be vulnerable to medical concerns (though mayor is kind lower stakes than president or governor) but I don't think I would straight up legally prohibit it.

5

Hilarias_Glucose_Cup t1_iyd1fm8 wrote

So you dont think there are politicians who have been on the job for so long they are primarily focused on their own self interest?

You think people like Ed Markey who has been a politician for almost 50 years is a better option than someone younger with a fresh perspective? Or someone like Mitch McConnell who has been in politics for 40 years? I'm simply stating, in general these old, long serving politicians are bad for our institutions but I'm also not going to go so crazy about correcting that by electing a really young person either.

3

Visible-Education-98 t1_iycwwsz wrote

I know plenty of under 25 year olds that don't break the law in any way, ever, under any circumstance. His age had NOTHING to do with it, that was all his personality (sneaky, narcissistic, arrogant), in other words LOSER!

20

RageAgainstThe t1_iyeu537 wrote

Hahaha well said!! The little Portuguese grandmas I know talk shit about him now

2

[deleted] t1_iycxwag wrote

[deleted]

12

redditor420_69 t1_iyd0395 wrote

Oh no! Wrong think! I bet I pay more taxes than you anyways

−11

SLEEyawnPY t1_iyd6xkp wrote

>I bet I pay more taxes than you anyways

Yeesh. Almost makes me nostalgic for the good ol' days when how much of a man you were largely depended on how many women you had banged.

Can we at least whip our dicks out and compare them in an entirely-straight fashion?

4

mhhkb t1_iyddhs0 wrote

You must be poor then because actual rich people know how to avoid paying taxes.

1

Cost_Additional t1_iyd3qet wrote

Nothing like infantizing a grown ass adult.

6

SLEEyawnPY t1_iyd56xu wrote

Judging by the user's comment history they seem to be an expert in the field of manbaby psychology.

1

RevengencerAlf t1_iyd7xjl wrote

Forget underdeveloped brain, at 23 just no human being on earth has the kind of life experience and leadership experience to give them the context needed to make meaningful, properly informed decisions running something as big as a town. Even if they're prodigy smart and understand all the technicalities of the job.

1

shallottmirror t1_iydxff7 wrote

What if there was a human being from Massachusetts who was elected mayor at age 21, was competent and professional with the job, through the suicide/drug deaths of his mother and brother, through a completely fabricated sex scandal, and left the position just a few years ago to become town manager somewhere else?

1

Tmonster96 t1_iyfbyey wrote

This is pretty specific—what’s the reference I’m missing?

1

RevengencerAlf t1_iye163p wrote

Every situation has its anomalies. I can find you a 12 year old who can drive a car safely but that doesn't mean we should start giving licenses to preteens.

0

[deleted] t1_iyeotae wrote

[deleted]

0

RevengencerAlf t1_iyevjrv wrote

>I think this is what bothers me about these quippy, short-form discussions like we have on Reddit is you kinda always end up with "okay we all agree on X, right?"

This is a complete false premise word salad. I probably shoudn't even be engaging since you start up so disingenuously but ok, whatever. Just because I didn't write a multi paragraph rant in response to a deliberately nebulous example doesn't mean I'm being "quippy."

Nobody just arbitrarily decided "pre teens can't drive." Age limits were established for driving because the societal cost of bad immature drivers outweighed the negligible benefit of a few standout cases who are good enough to handle it. In fact, the trend has been to increase the age limit over time societal mobility has increased and tolerance for unsafe situations has generally decreased.

Developed, modern societies have all collectively come to roughly the same solution over literal centuries of development that there are things young people are generally not equipped to handle as well as adults and therefore should not be allowed to do due to risk to self and others. We don't let a 12 year old drive because the overwhelming majority of 12 year olds lack the risk assessment skills and appreciation for safety from a mix of lack of experience and biological development. We also set age limits for other things like drinking, other heavy machinery, pornography, and yes, holding certain offices. Likewise private companies like banks and car rentals won't extend certain business opportunities to people who they have similar concerns about because their investment risk is deemed to be too high.

Reasonable arguments can be had about any of those and whether the currently set limits are appropriate, but you're not the fucking arbiter of that conversation and you projecting about wanting to hear the "road of the crowd" or whatever is not fostering that conversation or adding anything of value. If the person who gave that example wants to expand on it and counter my answer to their question with some points of their own, they know where to find this thread. You on the other hand could no doubt find something better to do with your time that wax philosophical about what you think is the tragic downfall political discourse or whatever.

1