Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:03 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 343

There should be an age limit on the Presidency.


This shouldn’t be controversial, but it seems as though it is. If you’re of an age where people have cause to worry you might have senile dementia, or that you might get it during your term, you shouldn’t be allowed to run for President.

I have to retire at 65 because society has determined that’s when my usefulness as an employee starts to sharply drop off. I, like most people, am very OK with that because I’ve zero desire to work into my 70s anyway. But if I did, I’d probably be politely ushered out anyway, and for good reason. And my job is about a billion times less difficult and stressful than the Presidency.

I get that the Founding Fathers said any natural born citizen over 35 could run for President. But you know what the average life expectancy was back then? I looked it up: 35 if you were an average Joe and 64 if you were an aristocrat. These criteria, like many things the Founders decreed, are out of date and need to be changed.

We’ve got a 73 year old President and a 78 year old presumptive front runner. Both might very well be suffering from dementia. One can’t talk about a single topic for more than 30 seconds without wandering off into the weeds, and the other seems to think websites and phone numbers are the same thing. This is simply deranged.

I get that there are plenty of 80 year olds who are sharp as a tack (Bernie Sanders, for instance, doesn’t look like he’s slowing down...yet) but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re at an increased risk of dementia and that risk grows bigger every day. The Presidency is simply too important to be given to people who might be on the verge of losing their marbles.

Proposition: If you’re older than 65, you can’t run for President. If you’re 65 and make it through your first term OK then you can have a crack at a second term, but no first termers over 65.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 09-04-2019 at 01:05 PM.
  #2  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:10 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
But you know what the average life expectancy was back then? I looked it up: 35 if you were an average Joe and 64 if you were an aristocrat.
Pretty sure you're looking at the wrong statistic here. That one likely incorporates childhood deaths. While lives have extended in the modern era, the average life expectancy of an adult hasn't changed that dramatically.

Anyway, that's relatively minor.

I disagree with your idea. In fact, I think we should remove the existing age and natural-born requirements from the presidency. America should not have second-class citizens, be they young, old, or foreign-born. Everyone should be able to run for the office of the President.

I think your arguments are a great reason not to vote for old people though.
  #3  
Old 09-04-2019, 05:26 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,650
I don't know how old you are, but today you can't be forced to retire because you're 65.

Quote:
When Congress first passed the ADEA [Age Discrimination in Employment Act], it protected only workers between the ages of 40 and 65. Once an employee reached the age of 65, he or she could be forced to retire. However, the ADEA was amended over 25 years ago to protect all employees who are 40 and older. As a result, today it is illegal for employers to adopt a mandatory retirement age.
I'm also older than 65 and I think it would be a huge mistake to vote for anyone over that age for President. The historical record backs that up.

But I'd be reluctant to put that in the Constitution. People do live longer and healthier with all their faculties today. Huge amounts of research into Alzheimer's is being done and several promising approaches will probably come onto the market over the next ten years. We don't have any idea where medicine can take us. Now is a particularly bad time to mess around with stuff we don't know the consequences of.
  #4  
Old 09-04-2019, 05:29 PM
Velocity is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,399
Agree. I'd like to set the limit at age 62. That way, if elected and reelected, you'd be around 70 by the time you left the Oval Office.
  #5  
Old 09-04-2019, 05:37 PM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,314
OK then, it shouldn't only be the President, it should be SCOTUS, and all of congress too. They have co-equal power in our form of government.
  #6  
Old 09-04-2019, 06:39 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
I think your arguments are a great reason not to vote for old people though.
Here in america we don't really get a choice. If your party decides to run a 90-year old, then you vote for the 90 year old or you don't vote for anyone, at least as far as the presidency is concerned.
  #7  
Old 09-04-2019, 06:41 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 85,123
The party doesn't decide to run a 90-year-old without your input, though. If you don't want a nonagenarian in the general election, then vote against him in the primaries.
  #8  
Old 09-04-2019, 06:42 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is online now
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,518
The problem with setting some arbitrary age limit is basically the same as setting any arbitrary limit on who can be president (or USSC or Congress-critter or whatever)...that it's going to be arbitrary. In addition, any age limit you set today is almost certainly going to be out of date, so to speak, in the future...just like if you set one in the past it wouldn't be applicable today. As medical technology progresses, someone who is in their 80's or even 90's CAN still be fully functional...until they can't. And when they aren't is going to depend on the individual, not some broad category grouping or actuary table. Certainly folks in their 70's today are much more functional, as a group, than a similarly aged group of folks in the 50's, and my WAG is this is going to continue to change as the population ages and companies focus on that market (not just in the US...many other countries have worst aging issues than we do). There will be a HUGE (hands) market for this stuff in the next 30 years, assuming the world doesn't go completely tits up and we go back to the joys of hunting and gathering (well, the few survivors anyway).

Myself, I think it's like any other decision that voters need to take responsibility for when they choose a candidate. We shouldn't 'fix' this issue and take those choices out, especially when we actually do have a succession system in place to deal with it if it becomes a real issue. I think we don't need an age limit on the presidency or on Congress or even on the USSC. I think there are a lot of bigger issues in our political system currently than this one. YMMV of course.
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!

Last edited by XT; 09-04-2019 at 06:43 PM.
  #9  
Old 09-04-2019, 06:44 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Here in america we don't really get a choice. If your party decides to run a 90-year old, then you vote for the 90 year old or you don't vote for anyone, at least as far as the presidency is concerned.
You can vote for one of the other candidates. Doesn't mean that candidate will win. Clearly, if you think that being 90 is such a huge impediment, you should just vote for a third party, or even for the other major party candidate.

If you're not willing to do that, I'm not sure why we should enshrine it in the Constitution. You've already proven that the 90-year-old you're willing to vote for is a better candidate than the other one. "We should amend the constitution because a majority of voters want to vote for someone I think shouldn't be president" isn't a very compelling argument.

"My preferred candidate can't get enough votes to win" is very much not the same as "I don't get a choice for whom to vote."
  #10  
Old 09-04-2019, 07:04 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
You can vote for one of the other candidates. Doesn't mean that candidate will win. Clearly, if you think that being 90 is such a huge impediment, you should just vote for a third party, or even for the other major party candidate.

If you're not willing to do that, I'm not sure why we should enshrine it in the Constitution. You've already proven that the 90-year-old you're willing to vote for is a better candidate than the other one. "We should amend the constitution because a majority of voters want to vote for someone I think shouldn't be president" isn't a very compelling argument.

"My preferred candidate can't get enough votes to win" is very much not the same as "I don't get a choice for whom to vote."
Wow, this doesn't align with my experience at all. Telling an american to vote third party is never good advice, for a starter, and lunging from that to "the guy voting against everything you value is a better candidate due to youth" is dubious at best.

Chronos has the right of it, to whatever degree the common man's vote has weight in the primaries. By the time it gets to the final voting booth, your choices are like it, go home, or make a third-party vote that is exactly equivalent to going home.
  #11  
Old 09-04-2019, 07:45 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 32,187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
If youíre of an age where people have cause to worry you might have senile dementia
That should be: if the President's actions/behavior give serious cause to believe he/she is suffering mental impairment. Setting an arbitrary age for disqualification for office ignores the reality that many people function very well into "old age", while some who are much younger are deteriorating or never had really good cognitive function to begin with.

There could at some point be a crisis where the President or other high elected official is displaying prominent signs of impairment, and it might become necessary to demand formal cognitive testing or proceed with impeachment. During his second term in 1919, Woodrow Wilson suffered a severe stroke (when he was 63 years old) and his mental faculties were apparently severely impaired, a condition lasting until he left office in March 1921, requiring his wife and senior aide(s) to help make executive decisions.

What should not be acceptable is ageist discrimination or labeling someone demented because they support policies you detest or in general behave like a jerk.
  #12  
Old 09-04-2019, 08:51 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,867
Yeah, while I definitely consider that "too old for the Presidency" is a real thing (and that certain current and former candidates for or holders of the office have met that criterion), I'd be against imposing a formal age limit on the office.

Even less so in the case of SC Justices, who don't have to trundle all over the world and make important decisions quickly the way Presidents do.
  #13  
Old 09-04-2019, 09:56 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,367
IF there is one, it should be in the early/mid 70s at the start of your first term as the cutoff. By that age you should still be competent to handle the job and if you are a developed human being, you've got 20 years of life experience above and beyond a person who is in their 50s.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #14  
Old 09-04-2019, 10:00 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,479
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
The problem with setting some arbitrary age limit is basically the same as setting any arbitrary limit on who can be president (or USSC or Congress-critter or whatever)...that it's going to be arbitrary.
Yes, it's arbitrary. But I expect we're going to hear a massive amount of talk about this issue in the next fourteen months. And it will all be saying that the acceptable age for somebody to get elected President is older than seventy-four and younger than seventy-seven.
  #15  
Old 09-04-2019, 10:06 PM
I Love Me, Vol. I's Avatar
I Love Me, Vol. I is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SF
Posts: 4,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
I disagree with your idea. In fact, I think we should remove the existing age and natural-born requirements from the presidency. America should not have second-class citizens, be they young, old, or foreign-born. Everyone should be able to run for the office of the President.
If we can just jam through a constitutional amendment before 2020 then Schwarzenegger could (would) primary the Orange Disgrace.
  #16  
Old 09-05-2019, 11:41 AM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Me, Vol. I View Post
If we can just jam through a constitutional amendment before 2020 then Schwarzenegger could (would) primary the Orange Disgrace.
Thus bringing us just a bit closer to the world as portrayed in Demolition Man.

I was actually excited by Schwarzenegger's Governorship, even though I wasn't a huge fan of his policies, because I thought he was potentially going to be popular enough to push for that change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert
lunging from that to "the guy voting against everything you value is a better candidate due to youth" is dubious at best.
If we agree that there are lots more important qualities in a candidate than their age, why should we disqualify candidates based on age?

Your scenario is essentially that a (potential) majority of voters want to vote for the 90-year-old they agree with over the younger candidate they disagree with, but we should somehow prevent that 90-year-old, who has popular support of voters, from running?
  #17  
Old 09-05-2019, 11:49 AM
DCnDC's Avatar
DCnDC is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Dueling Grounds
Posts: 12,644
I don't care about their age. I care that they know what the fuck they're doing, or at the very least have a rudimentary knowledge of how the federal government works.

Thus, I would like a standard high school civics test to be administered to each candidate that they must take in full public view, given at a random time without warning.
  #18  
Old 09-05-2019, 11:50 AM
Oakminster is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Surefall Glade, Antonica
Posts: 19,143
Requires a constitutional amendment, which will never happen.
  #19  
Old 09-05-2019, 12:03 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,578
Are those of you opposed to any maximum age limit equally opposed to the existing minimum age limit?
  #20  
Old 09-05-2019, 12:13 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oakminster View Post
Requires a constitutional amendment, which will never happen.
Can we stop trying to end every debate about election rules with "You would need an amendment!"
  #21  
Old 09-05-2019, 12:20 PM
BeagleJesus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 213
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. In my limited experience, the older you get the more likely you will be satisfied with treading water and working hard to maintain the status quo and I am sick and tired of having to wait for the old guard to die before we can get some fresh blood into the political machine.

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.
  #22  
Old 09-05-2019, 12:58 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
If we agree that there are lots more important qualities in a candidate than their age, why should we disqualify candidates based on age?

Your scenario is essentially that a (potential) majority of voters want to vote for the 90-year-old they agree with over the younger candidate they disagree with, but we should somehow prevent that 90-year-old, who has popular support of voters, from running?
My scenario is that we (somehow) decide that after a given age (say, 65), there's too high a probability that they're going to be a bad president for one reason or another.

The issue is not that we wish to screen out some specific 90 year old; the issue is that we (somehow) decide that we don't want any geriatric in the position. The closest that any current old farts play in to the equation is that they're belatedly showing us that the system in general isn't doing a good job of keeping the seniles out, so steps should maybe be taken.

As for some specific old dude being popular, I'm highly confident that were the rules to change, some other young dude would step into his shoes.
  #23  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:10 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,224
Bigotry and ageism.

Maybe since "some women get hysterical" and get angry during their "time" we should also forbid women from being president.

Or those blacks- we know how they are, dont we?
  #24  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:14 PM
Czarcasm's Avatar
Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 62,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Bigotry and ageism.

Maybe since "some women get hysterical" and get angry during their "time" we should also forbid women from being president.

Or those blacks- we know how they are, dont we?
Personally, I've never been swayed by "If you restrict one aspect it only follows that you must restrict all aspects!".
  #25  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:19 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Personally, I've never been swayed by "If you restrict one aspect it only follows that you must restrict all aspects!".
Heck, we're already on the slope - there's a lower limit on age.

Clearly, banning right-handed people is right around the corner.
  #26  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:23 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Are those of you opposed to any maximum age limit equally opposed to the existing minimum age limit?
I am. I think it should be up to the voters to decide, case by case.

And the problem with SCOTUS is not the lack of age limit, it's the fact that it's a lifetime appointment with very little chance of being removed from office before death.

Last edited by scr4; 09-05-2019 at 01:27 PM.
  #27  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:36 PM
Osano is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 33
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.
  #28  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:38 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,224
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Personally, I've never been swayed by "If you restrict one aspect it only follows that you must restrict all aspects!".
And where did i say that? Restricting any aspect due to sex, age, race, religion, etc is bigotry.
  #29  
Old 09-05-2019, 01:43 PM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,650
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.
Not by people who are sentient.
  #30  
Old 09-05-2019, 02:05 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
My scenario is that we (somehow) decide that after a given age (say, 65), there's too high a probability that they're going to be a bad president for one reason or another.
Right, I understand exactly what you're arguing.

I'm saying that limiting people from voting for who they want based on probabilities is a bad road to go down. A much better solution to that problem is to convince voters not to vote for old people, to convince older Presidents to select a cabinet that won't be afraid to invoke the 25th Amendment and to select a Vice President who is younger and ready to step in.
  #31  
Old 09-05-2019, 02:12 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Personally, I've never been swayed by "If you restrict one aspect it only follows that you must restrict all aspects!".
More like "your rationale for restriction is invalid, because the same rationale should logically lead to other absurd restrictions."

Last edited by scr4; 09-05-2019 at 02:12 PM.
  #32  
Old 09-05-2019, 02:47 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,779
Where do you draw the line? If old people are ineligible, what about felons? Make felons ineligible and bet that some rinky-dink state that hates XX will ram XX through a kangaroo court to make her a felon!

The U.S.A. rightly prides itself on being the Land of Freedom. Enshrine criteria into law and you've taken freedom from the voters and given it to a law framed by an earlier generation. (Where I live a recent constitution dictated that only college grads can serve in Parliament IIRC. Some popular activists from rural areas became ineligible, while corrupt boss-men could still buy a a college degree if necessary.)

Should the law require that Presidential candidates pass a psychiatric exam? Release their taxes? Show that their staffings satisfied some diversity criteria? NO; such criteria might be enforced by opinion-makers, not by the LAW.

I'd have no problem with the politicos and editors in a smoke-filled room agreeing to reject candidates who don't submit to mental evaluation, or who don't release their taxes, or who aren't exactly 43Ĺ years old ó that's their right, but these criteria don't have the force of law.

Uh oh. We don't have smoke-filled rooms anymore. Candidates are chosen by Facebook lies reposted by dimwits gulled by Russian trolls. Yeah; there are problems. Big problems that persnickety cosmetic fixes won't solve.
  #33  
Old 09-05-2019, 03:00 PM
scr4 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 16,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
The U.S.A. rightly prides itself on being the Land of Freedom. Enshrine criteria into law and you've taken freedom from the voters and given it to a law framed by an earlier generation.
While I agree with this, this also requires that voters be given all the relevant information to make the judgment. Especially since being elected to certain positions means they are automatically granted access to classified information. So the voters should see everything that would normally be used as part of a security clearance background check. Tax returns included.
  #34  
Old 09-05-2019, 03:05 PM
HMS Irruncible is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
I have to retire at 65 because society has determined thatís when my usefulness as an employee starts to sharply drop off.
This is actually not true. Nobody has to retire at 65, and many people can't afford to. 65 is just the age limit where society decided people should get various retirement benefits so that they don't have to work if they don't choose to.

I'm in favor of elected officials being bound by an age limit of 70. No doubt that many people keep their faculties by the age of 70, but most people are already suffering some mental decline by that age.

The Trump and Reagan presidencies highlight the fact that not only do we have no functioning mechanism to determine whether a president has lost his marbles, we lack the political capacity to ask the question.

I'm actually OK with that. I wouldn't want a president I like being harassed by constant mental health challenges from a hostile congress. For that same reason I'm OK that sitting presidents can't be indicted. But if we're going to be lax on elected officials that way, we should have more strict statutory limits on who gets to wield that kind of power.
  #35  
Old 09-05-2019, 03:43 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
Right, I understand exactly what you're arguing.

I'm saying that limiting people from voting for who they want based on probabilities is a bad road to go down. A much better solution to that problem is to convince voters not to vote for old people, to convince older Presidents to select a cabinet that won't be afraid to invoke the 25th Amendment and to select a Vice President who is younger and ready to step in.
It's my observation that in America, the primary system and other party-related systemic issues tend to give most people no choice about how old the person they're voting for is. I mean, yes, if your choice is a 76 year old democrat and a 75 year old republican, then a democrat COULD throw aside their principles and vote for the republican due to him being 'young', but in practical terms the system in place makes voting only for young people an unviable strategy.

I don't know that capping ages is the best way to deal with this, but it's certainly one way.
  #36  
Old 09-05-2019, 04:02 PM
Corry El is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamthewalrus(:3= View Post
Pretty sure you're looking at the wrong statistic here. That one likely incorporates childhood deaths. While lives have extended in the modern era, the average life expectancy of an adult hasn't changed that dramatically.

Anyway, that's relatively minor.

I disagree with your idea. In fact, I think we should remove the existing age and natural-born requirements from the presidency. America should not have second-class citizens, be they young, old, or foreign-born. Everyone should be able to run for the office of the President.
I agree with everything I quoted. Removal of the existing restrictions (35, time living in US etc) is not going to happen either because it would also require a constitutional amendment and nobody cares enough to go through that rigamarole on this issue.

But conceptually it's going the wrong way to add restrictions. If you don't trust the people (even via the Electoral College, which isn't the issue wrt age of candidates) to elect the right president then why have an elected president? Invite an unemployed noble to be constitutional monarch. Seriously, the Founders had limited faith in the electorate (as reflected throughout the document, and also outside it in terms of states' voter qualification requirements at the time), but the general evolution has been toward more. If medical advances allow people to be effective presidents in their 70's or in the future their 90's, then we have to have an amendment to allow that? Seems ridiculous to me. That's exactly the sort of thing voters should decide without a lot of preconditions. As opposed to say changing individual rights where the 'momentary passions of the people' are rightly more constrained by the constitution's text and courts' interpretation of it. The existing restrictions on who can be president are the anomaly, not the fact that they aren't more.

Last edited by Corry El; 09-05-2019 at 04:03 PM.
  #37  
Old 09-05-2019, 04:14 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I don't know how old you are, but today you can't be forced to retire because you're 65.
There are exceptions- IIRC, you can't be a pilot after 65, nor a FBI agent after 57, or a General in the military past 64, or an enlisted man past 62.

I'm not at all sure why a FBI agent naturally loses his zip at 57, but we assume some geezer in his 70s is peachy keen for being President.
  #38  
Old 09-05-2019, 04:23 PM
iamthewalrus(:3= is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Posts: 12,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
There are exceptions- IIRC, you can't be a pilot after 65, nor a FBI agent after 57, or a General in the military past 64, or an enlisted man past 62.

I'm not at all sure why a FBI agent naturally loses his zip at 57, but we assume some geezer in his 70s is peachy keen for being President.
The standard for restricting political power or participation should be substantially higher than for being a pilot or a general or any other occupation.

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.

What's disputed is whether that's sufficient reason to keep people from voting for the candidate of their choice. I don't think it is. I'm deeply suspicious of any restrictions on who may vote or whom they may vote for. I think the only requirement to vote or hold office in the US should be citizenship (and, maybe, term limits), and any other restrictions should be removed. Because restrictions are toxic to the idea of political freedom.
  #39  
Old 09-05-2019, 04:49 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
I have to retire at 65 because society has determined that’s when my usefulness as an employee starts to sharply drop off.
Social Security has determined that you don't get full retirement benefits until age 67, so "society" has determined (with money, which is what counts) you should work for at least a couple more years.

Quote:
We’ve got a 73 year old President and a 78 year old presumptive front runner. Both might very well be suffering from dementia. One can’t talk about a single topic for more than 30 seconds without wandering off into the weeds, and the other seems to think websites and phone numbers are the same thing. This is simply deranged.
There's another front-runner in the race who is 70 years old. The 2016 Democratic nominee is 71. The 2008 Republican nominee was 72 when he ran, and continued to serve in the Senate for another 8 years. Bob Dole was 73 when he ran in 1996 and remained politically active for another 20 years.

Quote:
I get that there are plenty of 80 year olds who are sharp as a tack (Bernie Sanders, for instance, doesn’t look like he’s slowing down...yet)
More than HALF the justices on the Supreme Court are over age 65 (Sonia Sotomayor is 65, Samuel Alito 69, Clarence Thomas 71, Stephen Breyer 81, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 86. The Pope is 83 and Queen freakin' Elizabeth is 93.

Last edited by Kent Clark; 09-05-2019 at 04:51 PM.
  #40  
Old 09-05-2019, 05:44 PM
The Librarian's Avatar
The Librarian is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Delft
Posts: 1,188
Remember those old men in front of the Kremlin looking at soldiers parading by?

They were all younger than the current crop of geriatrics running for president.

(Trump 73, Biden 76, Sanders 77, Warren 70
Khrushchev died at 77, Breshnev at 75, Andropov at 69, Chernenko at 73)

What is up with Americans and their politicians?
Do they think people get smarter as they age? (Have they met their grandparents?)
__________________
Oook!
  #41  
Old 09-05-2019, 05:49 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,590
Yet another vote for: You can't set a specific number, because "too old" happens at such different ages for different people.
  #42  
Old 09-05-2019, 05:51 PM
begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Idaho
Posts: 13,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
Yet another vote for: You can't set a specific number, because "too old" happens at such different ages for different people.
But think of how fun it would be to say that you can't run for public office after the age of 45!

The effects on the political parties would be amazing.
  #43  
Old 09-05-2019, 07:56 PM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 27,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
But think of how fun it would be to say that you can't run for public office after the age of 45!
Don't trust anyone over 30.
  #44  
Old 09-06-2019, 09:16 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,431
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Librarian View Post
What is up with Americans and their politicians?
Do they think people get smarter as they age? (Have they met their grandparents?)
I think a lot of it is that there's a sort of age-pyramid going on. You can get elected to lower level positions like city council, state legislator, etc... in your mid-late 30s. Then from there, you step up to state senator/Federal rep/mayor now that you have experience, and then after some amount of time in that position, you're now considered experienced enough to run for Governor / Senator / VP. Then after you've done that, you're generally considered experienced enough for President. Few people make it that high without being in their fifties at least, most are a little bit older.


You do get politicians who skip steps- Bill Clinton, for example, went from State Rep, to State Atty. General to Governor of Arkansas by the time he was 31, and stayed Governor for another 10 years, and then got elected President at 46, making him one of the youngest in recent decades. Barack Obama was similar- he went straight to the Illinois Senate to the Federal Senate, and then to the Presidency by the time he was 47. They are unusual though.


And a lot of voters like the idea of politicians who were successful in their own right prior to being a politician, so you can add in a decade or so there for people to run their own businesses, etc... prior to becoming a politician.

TL;DR- it's not so much a love of older people, it's a perception that someone who's say... 45 rarely has enough experience in weighty enough positions to qualify to be President.
  #45  
Old 09-06-2019, 11:16 AM
Exapno Mapcase is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,650
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
TL;DR- it's not so much a love of older people, it's a perception that someone who's say... 45 rarely has enough experience in weighty enough positions to qualify to be President.
There were huge, or at least very loud, criticisms of Kennedy, Clinton, and Obama for their perceived lack of experience. They were three of the five youngest to be elected. Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush 2 were three of the six oldest before Trump and while some grumbling accompanied Reagan, their ages were not issues. Some people did have doubts by the end when Eisenhower had a series of strokes and heart attacks and other medical issues and Reagan was clearly in the first stages of dementia. Even so, they had about a 105% chance of their being elected to a third term if that were possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Librarian View Post
What is up with Americans and their politicians?
Do they think people get smarter as they age? (Have they met their grandparents?)
No, I never met my grandparents. The last one died when I was seven months old.

I'm going off to my safe space, put on an ASMR video, and hug a pillow. Meanie.

Will no one comfort the grandparentless?
  #46  
Old 09-06-2019, 06:59 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 227
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. In my limited experience, the older you get the more likely you will be satisfied with treading water and working hard to maintain the status quo and I am sick and tired of having to wait for the old guard to die before we can get some fresh blood into the political machine.

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.
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.
  #47  
Old 09-06-2019, 11:31 PM
bionic_man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 89
Don't we have 90 year old judges on the supreme Court.
  #48  
Old 09-07-2019, 09:25 PM
PoppaSan's Avatar
PoppaSan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: West shore Lake Michigan
Posts: 2,370
Quote:
Originally Posted by bionic_man View Post
Don't we have 90 year old judges on the supreme Court.
No
Glad to see reading is not a lost art.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
...
More than HALF the justices on the Supreme Court are over age 65 (Sonia Sotomayor is 65, Samuel Alito 69, Clarence Thomas 71, Stephen Breyer 81, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 86. The Pope is 83 and Queen freakin' Elizabeth is 93.
__________________
This place is beginning to feel like a tin foil hat convention.
  #49  
Old 09-07-2019, 11:20 PM
sps49sd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 554
Age discrimination is a thing. But not in this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enalzi View Post
Can we stop trying to end every debate about election rules with "You would need an amendment!"
Apparently, some posters need to be reminded.
  #50  
Old 09-08-2019, 12:37 AM
kirkrapine is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381
There should be an age limit of 70 for all federal officials -- executive, legislative and judicial.
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 10:24 AM.

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 © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017