Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 09-08-2019, 09:10 AM
Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
Can we stop trying to end every debate about election rules with "You would need an amendment!"
Why would we, when most of the proposed changes do, in fact, require an amendment?
  #52  
Old 09-08-2019, 09:13 AM
Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osano View Post
Why? We already had a Regan who was known to have Dementia very early on and he is hailed and one of the best Presidents of the modern era.
I would be very interested in cites that Reagan was "known" to have dementia "very early on."

Meanwhile, back in the real world, there were some suspicions that he had dementia late in his second term.
  #53  
Old 09-08-2019, 12:34 PM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osano View Post
Why? We already had a Regan who was known to have Dementia very early on and he is hailed and one of the best Presidents of the modern era.
"Hailed as" != "was."

Tear Down This Myth.
  #54  
Old 09-08-2019, 03:03 PM
Nars Glinley is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sweeping down the plain.
Posts: 5,796
Iím opposed to any restrictions on being president. If youíre a 20 year old Canadian-born convicted felon and you can get enough votes, power to you.

I do support maximum age restrictions on SCOTUS positions since they are unelected.
__________________
I've decided to spend more time criticizing things I don't understand. - Dogbert
  #55  
Old 09-08-2019, 07:22 PM
Barack Obama is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 462
Then there should also be a maximum age limit on voting.
  #56  
Old 09-09-2019, 08:49 AM
BeagleJesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is in the same position in 2019 as Joe Biden was in 1973. Both elected to Congress at the age of 29. Unless she decides to run for president immediately once she turns of age (and wins) I suspect you'd want her to have as long a career as he has because if she does then she'll have accomplished an agenda you want.
I am an AOC fan. I like where she chooses to focus her attention and I love the energy and passion she brings to the table. That being said, if/when the time comes where she cannot or will not bring the energy and passion or her agenda changes from "how can we move forward" to "how can we maintain the status quo" I would hope that she is self aware enough to realize it's time to walk away and hand the reins off to someone younger, more energetic and passionate with an agenda that looks toward the future. Hopefully she will be able to step aside with grace and work to help guide the next generations instead of trying to "rule" the next generations in a manner that is all to common these days.

I'm in my mid-forties now and I have often found myself apathetic to the voting process as it has often felt like a choice between a hodgepodge of old people who are more interested in forcing others to live by their rules and don't give a shit about anything the younger generation(s) care about. If we want more young people to actively and enthusiastically participate in the democratic process we need to give them the space and opportunity to get involved and create their own agenda. And the only way to create the necessary space is to force the older generation to walk away.

I know this is probably coming off as ageism and I do apologize for that. But in my opinion, after you reach a certain age you need to face the uncomfortable fact that the future does not belong to you and you shouldn't be the one to decide how we get there.
  #57  
Old 09-09-2019, 09:26 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Then there should also be a maximum age limit on voting.
Why? Surly you don't think that voting for someone is equivalent to actually holding a high stress elected position...do you???
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #58  
Old 09-09-2019, 09:27 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,277
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeagleJesus View Post
I'm in my mid-forties now and I have often found myself apathetic to the voting process as it has often felt like a choice between a hodgepodge of old people who are more interested in forcing others to live by their rules and don't give a shit about anything the younger generation(s) care about.
I used to think it was a generational gap that was the problem, but the older I get, the more I'm thinking that the real problem is that politicians' first duty (as they perceive it) is to get re-elected and/or enrich themselves, or recently with the Tea Partiers, loyalty to a specific ideology.

So you get elected officials whose goals often run counter to what's best for their constitutents, either because they're busy doing what's best for themselves, or they're busy adhering to some sort of ideological concept without regard for the real world.

I tend to think that's a bigger deal overall than whether or not there's a lot of concern among middle-aged and older politicians about student loan debt among millenials.
  #59  
Old 09-09-2019, 01:07 PM
DrDeth is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Why? Surly you don't think that voting for someone is equivalent to actually holding a high stress elected position...do you???
Bigotry is Bigotry.
  #60  
Old 09-09-2019, 04:35 PM
begbert2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
Why would we, when most of the proposed changes do, in fact, require an amendment?
Because when the response to the question "would this be a good idea if we could somehow enact this into law" is "it's not currently the law", then that's threadshitting.
  #61  
Old 09-10-2019, 06:25 AM
Uzi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeagleJesus View Post
I think there is a huge problem in American politics where the older generation(s) simply refuse to let go of the reins and allow the younger generations to take the country in a direction they would like to see.
And when they get old enough they can take the reins and do what they think is right... (Unlikely that they will as their opinions will likely have change by then). But why should someone's impatience mean that older people can't use their experience to benefit the country?

Quote:
In my limited experience,
Bingo.

Quote:
I would drop the minimum age requirement to 21 and I would cap the max age at 55 for ALL elected positions as well as SCOTUS.
I'm older than the max age now, but one thing I do know is the last person who should be running a country is myself at age 21. Now, no problem (compared to orangutan)

Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
I mean: I agree that people over 65 are more likely to have serious mental deficiencies in the next 4-8 years than younger people. That's not in dispute.
How 'likely'? 90%? 1%? At this age I've forgotten more than my younger self ever knew. Yet I still know more that he did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Then there should also be a maximum age limit on voting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
Why? Surly you don't think that voting for someone is equivalent to actually holding a high stress elected position...do you???
Far more important. A voter decides who is elected. Morons shouldn't be allowed near a voting booth. As most young people are not much smarter than that they probably shouldn't be allowed, either. So, if the age limit for President is 35, then no one younger than that should be allowed to vote for them.
  #62  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:18 AM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barack Obama View Post
Then there should also be a maximum age limit on voting.
I must admit that eliminating the AARP as an electoral factor would come as something of a relief.
  #63  
Old 09-11-2019, 12:31 AM
Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Because when the response to the question "would this be a good idea if we could somehow enact this into law" is "it's not currently the law", then that's threadshitting.
"A law" does not equal "constitutional amendment." The two things are entirely different entities. One way--although not the only way--in which they differ is that an amendment is about 3 orders of magnitude more difficult to enact.

If you saw somebody carrying a plastic dog crate, and boasting that he was going to go out into the woods and use the crate to trap a bear, would you consider it "threadshitting" to point out that he was using the wrong equipment?
  #64  
Old 09-11-2019, 09:00 AM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uzi
Far more important. A voter decides who is elected. Morons shouldn't be allowed near a voting booth. As most young people are not much smarter than that they probably shouldn't be allowed, either. So, if the age limit for President is 35, then no one younger than that should be allowed to vote for them.
I'm hoping you were tongue in cheek here. The trouble is, who decides who is or isn't a 'moron'...and based on what criteria? Basically, any free citizen should be able to vote as long as they are competent enough to show up and get a ballot and make their mark.

Holding office, however, is another matter. While I, personally, don't think we should put a formal age limit on anyone (aside from 18 on the bottom end, and I could be convinced even that isn't necessary), the fact is that elected office is a lot more stressful than going to the voting booth to select your candidate(s) and positions. It's also defused over a larger population. Your 90 year old voter isn't making THE crucial decision as to who is going to be elected...s/he is part of a collective of 10's of thousands, 100's of thousands or even millions making a collective decision. On the flip side, the guy or gal who wins has that all on their shoulders (well, and whatever staff they select), so it's a much greater burden.

Like I said, I don't, personally think we should have or need some sort of formal age limit for candidates or even appointments. That should be up to the voters and part of their calculus of decision making (such as it is) for who they select. But it's kind of ridiculous to say that if there was, that the same would apply to the voters too, as it's apples to orangutans.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #65  
Old 09-11-2019, 03:20 PM
begbert2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyer View Post
"A law" does not equal "constitutional amendment." The two things are entirely different entities. One way--although not the only way--in which they differ is that an amendment is about 3 orders of magnitude more difficult to enact.

If you saw somebody carrying a plastic dog crate, and boasting that he was going to go out into the woods and use the crate to trap a bear, would you consider it "threadshitting" to point out that he was using the wrong equipment?
The discussion isn't about the equipment. It's about whether bears should be trapped.

In this thread, people are saying bears should probably be trapped, and discussing whether trapping bears would be better than not trapping bears. The response "Amassing the equipment to trap bears would be hard and thus end of discussion" is indeed threadshitting, in my opinion.
  #66  
Old 09-11-2019, 09:37 PM
Uzi is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 4,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
I'm hoping you were tongue in cheek here. The trouble is, who decides who is or isn't a 'moron'...and based on what criteria? Basically, any free citizen should be able to vote as long as they are competent enough to show up and get a ballot and make their mark.
I remember many a discussion on people not having the capability of getting their picture on an ID to prove their eligibility to vote. I would think that would be the minimum requirement.

Quote:
Holding office, however, is another matter.
Is it? Someone is electing orangutans into office. You can't blame the Orangutan as he is just flinging shit like all orangutan's do. It is the people in the voting booth doing the damage.

Quote:
While I, personally, don't think we should put a formal age limit on anyone (aside from 18 on the bottom end, and I could be convinced even that isn't necessary),
It is entirely necessary. A person under a certain age doesn't have the life experience to make decisions that could affect people for generations to come. And while you may say that the decisions made by the current crop of monkeys aren't that great I can only imagine the disaster that an idealistic 18 year old would unleash on the world.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017