Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by inquirerofsorts 2033 days ago
> would rather let the leadership grow old and senile than promote a competent person

Sounds a tad familiar? The US just elected the oldest President ever, who has spent decades in government.

Honestly confused by Americans pretending they have anything that different to what the Chinese do. Bushes, Clintons, it's like you've all harked back to royal lines while pretending it's something else.

It's truly terrifying that democracies are electing older and older people across the board, they simply aren't capable of doing the job, everyone I know over 60 has highly diminished mental capacities and if not retired they should be relegated to menial tasks.

I know it's a harsh thing to say and I'm truly sorry to people of said demographic reading this stuff but it's a cold hard fact easily backed up by decades of science.

Elderly people are the most dangerous politicians on the planet.

3 comments

> It's truly terrifying that democracies are electing older and older people across the board

Why? Despite short-term trends mostly connected to the opioid crisis, over the long term people are living longer and being mentally and physically functional longer, especially at the high tail of the distribution (and when you are talking about elected leaders, its a small group, not the bulk of the population.)

> they simply aren't capable of doing the job, everyone I know over 60 has highly diminished mental capacities

There is a very slight on-average decline of executive function with age past, IIRC, the early 30s. Healthy 60 year olds don't have "highly diminished mental capacities" as a rule, so if everyone you know over that age does, that tells more about who you know than it does about over 60 year olds.

> I know it's a harsh thing to say and I'm truly sorry to people of said demographic reading this stuff but it's a cold hard fact easily backed up by decades of science.

No, its not.

+1. Biden and Trump both sounded so much more intelligent in their younger days; I don't understand why we insist on only allowing people to lead our country when they're at their worst.

And despite billing himself as the alternate to the dynastical system, Trump quickly used the presidency as a vehicle for advancing his family's careers. Biden did the exact same thing as vice president - you can tell me what Hunter Biden did was "legal" till the cows come home, he obviously profited immensely from foreign business opportunities that existed solely because his dad was VP.

It's a problem that so-called liberal people love claiming that a scandal has been "debunked" because it was, in fact, legal to engage in extreme corruption. Do we really accept that this system is legitimate, much less superior to those horrible Russians and Chinese? As if they don't call their corruption legal, too?

I've heard the Biden stuff is all smoke [1]. What's the part of the story that I'm missing? What was the corruption?

1. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/here-s-what-h...

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3896812/posts

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/10/22/bobuli...

Search on DDG for other statements from Tony Bobulinksi. He was one of Hunter Biden's business partners, and a former Navy officer (unlike Hunter, he didn't get kicked out of the Navy for drug abuse). Bottom line: Hunter's income stems almost entirely from foreign powers buying access to his father. Most dangerously, the Chinese.

I'm more interested in the evidence he says he has than his statement.

> I have extensive relevant records and communications and I intend to produce those items to both Committees in the immediate future.

Where is this?

Here's some of it: https://apelbaum.wordpress.com/2020/11/02/the-biden-rat-year...

Strange that the Cathay Bank wire transfer document has the amount redacted, of all things.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/breaking-evidence-b...

I feel kinda dumb right now because I don't really see a smoking gun here or I just don't understand what I'm looking at.
> I don't understand why we insist on only allowing people to lead our country when they're at their worst.

Even if being, as the GP suggests, over 60 was "at their worst", we don't. Sure, Trump and Biden are unusually old for Presidents. The remainder of the most recent five elected Presidents, Clinton, Bush the Younger, and Obama, were all unusually young for Presidents -- Clinton (3rd youngest at inauguration) and Obama (5th youngest at inauguration) were both under 50 when they took office, W was under 55.

Biden himself is very old, but from what I've seen he's going to focus on installing competent people, many of them younger, instead of picking "old friends". Whereas Trump has spent his entire presidency ejecting competent people (usually because they "disagreed with him") and replacing them with his mostly-elderly buddies, many of whom aren't remotely qualified for the positions they've been handed. Rick Perry was the Secretary of Energy for goodnessake.