I think it’s orchestrated, myself.

It seems nihilistic and doesn’t seem to have any real aim other than further dividing Democrats. There is nothing inherently good or bad about someone’s age (well, unless they haven’t fully developed the PFC - there is a reason there are age requirements at the lower end) when you are trying to determine if they are fit to lead.

Now, if people were to propose using more advanced screening techniques to catch things like Alzheimer’s or other problematic things (I’d be a fan of trying to screen out various traits that lead to really bad leadership, myself, but obviously implementation would have many problems and of course many detractors), that might make more sense. But no, we are listening to what sounds like petulant teenagers having tirades about older people and it’s rather boring. All of us were 14 once, but most of us evolved since then. The idea that you are only going to have representation from people who are in your “generation” is an incredibly silly and narcissistic one.

Lastly I keep saying this, but: this particular period of time is really not going to age very well if life extension and other breakthroughs come online.

There’s a difference between wanting more diverse representation and only wanting representation from one generation and I think you’re being dismissive about a real complaint from those of us being told to vote for the same old guard again and again.

It is true: I am highly dismissive of some kind of arbitrary cutoff based on age or term limits.

I completely understand the deep frustration with certain individuals, for example, Schumer and Pelosi. But it has little to do with their age or the number of terms they have had, in my view. Things like this should be determined, by voters, on a case by case basis.

If people are really that animated about changing the guard, then they need to do the work and show up on primaries, whether that is going so far as running themselves, or working for campaigns, or at least voting. But arbitrarily preempting the choices that others may want to vote for if they like a candidate, regardless (or perhaps because) of age/years of experience seems very unwise.

It is true: I am highly dismissive of some kind of arbitrary cutoff based on age or term limits.

It isn’t their age that is the problem. The problem is the ideals they must hold to remain in office at that age: I want to retire some day.

I want a candidate who shares that value.

A candidate who keeps running for office long past retirement age is a candidate with a wildly unhealthy work/life balance. They demonstrate with their actions that they do not share our values.

We might not need a formal, legal requirement to prohibit a retirement-age candidate from taking office, but we should ask the electorate to consider their own expectations for retirement when choosing a candidate.

Workaholic candidates do not belong in office.

Eh, I’ve seen people doing a job they like way past the “standard” retirement age. But here’s the important part - IF they are not being forced out by the company and/or the culture. It so happens a lot of people like having a sense of purpose and doing a job they like is often a big part of that. Telling people to wander off to go play shuffleboard or whatever the fuck and just wait to die is not much of a purpose.

Often it’s doctors I’ve seen work well into their 70s/80s, though I think the corruption brought by acquisition of practices/hospitals and insurance companies is probably changing that, I’ve known of at least one doctor more or less forced into retirement against his will.

Some people actually really do believe in the idea of civic duty and serving their country, so I have zero problem with politicians that work way past the “standard” retirement age. I’d have to take it on a case by case basis. I definitely have zero interest in arbitrary age limits and term limits removing good candidates from the field entirely. That should be up to the voters.

Someone like Pelosi irritates me no end, but it’s more her stance on insider trading and the way she has tried to gatekeep progressives from entering than anything else. She could be in her 30s and on her first term, and it would still drive me up the wall.