He is getting a little too forgetful unfortunately. At a speech he gave a few days ago, he forgot that a female politician had died, and he had said some words at her eulogy about a month ago.
…which was what the OP mentioned as having precipitated this thread.
Maybe some people are too old to post here now. 
…I think multiple things can be true at once.
I think Biden is the only realistic candidate able to win the next election for the Democrats. I also don’t think that in isolation, that his age is a problem here.
The real problem isn’t that Biden is too old. Its that Congress is too old.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/29/politics/congress-age/index.html
Add to this the under-representation of both women and people of colour, and it paints a picture of a political system that clearly isn’t representative of the people that it seeks to serve.
Why the American system of democracy has evolved into this is a question with a long and relatively nuanced answer. But the TLDR version is that white rich people who have all the money and all the power have created a system that ensures that they will continue to have all the money and hold all the power.
And that system won’t change by simply restricting the age that somebody can be President. The problems here are structural, and I can’t see them changing in the short-term short of a revolution.
So Biden’s age, on its own, isn’t an issue. If he is suffering cognitive impairment, then of course that’s an issue. But that’s a separate issue. And one that cannot be readily diagnosed from the occasional gaffe, viewed from the comfort of home.
The real issue here is that Biden is part of a ruling class in a political system and society that privileges that class.
Yeah, wasn’t there a time Biden forgot that a congresswoman had died?
Why the American system of democracy has evolved into this? You mean other than that was the way it was set up from it’s start?
…yes. Why the American system of democracy has evolved into this.
There are plenty of people (not me) who argue that “no, it wasn’t set up this way from the start, that the founding fathers wanted to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare of its people. It wasn’t about rich powerful people wanting to remain rich powerful people. Really. It wasn’t. Trust me.”
But I’m not particularly interested in having that debate, and that debate really isn’t relevant to the topic at hand. But if you do want to argue about that with people, by all means, start that thread.
Careful now. You may get reminded that that’s what precipitated this thread.
Is @DeadTreasSecretaries too old to post on the SDMB?
(I kid, I kid.)
This Procrustean Logan’s Run type of discussion always prompts me to discussion the instatement of cognitive and intelligence tests for the Executive and Legislative branches. Maybe Judicial, IDK. Congressmen and Senators have to be tested at least once every ten years. Presidents every four.
Then I think how reminiscent this is of Jim Crow-era “literacy tests” and withdraw the suggestion.
I don’t have a problem with the tests, but they should serve as information to the public, not as a disqualifier for office.
I feel like requiring a medical exam is risky or pointless.
If there’s a designated doctor that has to sign off on it, that means one single person can influence the presidential election by either approving or not approving the medical forms. This could lead to many different problems such as bribery, intimidation, blackmail, or just the doctor’s personal bias effecting their decision.
If there’s no designated doctor, and it just requires ANY doctor to sign off on it. Then it just becomes trivial. Any president, no matter how unhealthy, would be able to find some doctor that would sign off on him.
Donald “Filet-o-Fish” Trump, for example.
It doesn’t have to be just one doctor.
But, in any case, while a doctor’s medical opinion as to their fitness for office may be altered by their political affiliation, there are in fact objective results to tests. The interpretation of some of those results may be up to opinion, but that’s where the voter can choose.
And maybe I’ll vote for the person with terminal cancer who will almost certainly die in office, if that is what I think is best, given the balance of options.
Their medical information should be public, what the voters do with it is up to them.
As a general rule, yes, I think Biden is too old. But, then, in 2020, so was the other guy. I also voted for Warren in the primary, and she isn’t exactly young either.
If I were to set some arbitrary age at which a president would be too old, I would say 72. But this number is based on nothing but sheer prejudice - it just feels right.
In the end, it’s up to the voters to decide. As it should be.
Personally, I’d be fine with an amendment that set it (I’d probably put the age at Washington’s the year he took office the second time - 60) but, I’ll note:
- There was no such proposal in the OP, nor any attempt to say that if someone is X years old then, de facto, they are unfit, regardless of anything.
- The voters aren’t expected to vote in a vacuum. If it’s a point of relevance for any particular candidate, it should be discussed honestly and practically for that specific candidate, based on the available, true evidence of their ability to function properly and to understand the needs of the time.