nope. we need much younger politicians.
And we need 70+ old guys learn new things just like this politician does.
So for example in my area, given that as much as 40% of the population is hispanic / latino, I'd really like to see more people from that demographic get elected. Likewise, about 50% of the population is female, therefore I want to see more women elected. I even want to see fewer lawyers and more laborers, teachers, etc in elected positions. I'm not convinced that politician should be a career and it definitely should not be the sole domain of old, white, rich lawyers the way that it has been historically. And, regardless of who is elected, I want them to be mentally adept and aim to be educated and informed rather than complacent.
Humans memorize the information relative to them. If politicians memorize racism they’ll make racist policy.
I don’t want people who think in 100 year old social terms alone deciding my fate.
Society that never retires old ideas, demands speech stay on specific rails is hardly free. That type of governance is the basis of a police state.
Discriminating against someone on the basis of age is anti-social behavior.
It’s also factual that wealth greatly impacts education, but we wouldn’t want to suggest poor people are unfit for office due to this disadvantage right?
My parents are into their 70s and I have yet to detect even the slightest mental degradation.
It might be fair to say, as a sibling comment does, that one needs younger politicians so they can better represent one's constituents.
But to dismiss them just because they're old amounts to shutting off an economically productive segment of the population. More importantly, by discriminating against individuals because of their class membership rather than because of their abilities amounts to prejudice, no?
? Does my comment read otherwise?