Thanks for your submission /u/WheelsThrowaway2023, but it has been removed for the following reason:
Disallowed question area: **Rant or loaded question**
NoStupidQuestions is a place to ask any question as long as *it's asked in good faith*. Our users routinely report questions that they feel violate this rule to us. Want to avoid your question being seen as a bad faith question? Common mistakes include (but are not limited to):
* Rants: Could your question be answered with *'That's awful'* or *'What an asshole'*? Then it's probably a rant rather than a genuine question. Looking for a place to vent on Reddit? Try /r/TrueOffMyChest or /r/Rant instead.
* Loaded questions: Could your question be answered with *'You're right'*? Answering the question yourself, explaining your reasoning for your opinion, or making sweeping assumptions about the question itself all signals that you may not be keeping an open mind. Want to know why people have a different opinion than you? Try /r/ExplainBothSides instead!
* Arguments: Arguing or [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning) with people giving you answers tells everyone that you have an answer in mind already. Want a good debate? Try /r/ChangeMyView instead!
* Pot Stirring: Did you bring up unnecessary topics in your question? Especially when a topic has to do with already controversial issues like politics, race, gender or sex, this can be seen as trying to score points against the Other Side - and that makes people defensive, which leads to arguments. Questions like *"If _____ is allowed, why isn't _____?"* don't need to have that comparison - just ask *'why isn't ____ allowed?'*.
* Complaining about moderation: If you disagree with how the sub is run or a decision the mods have made, that's fine! But please share your thoughts with us in modmail rather than as a public post.
Disagree with the mods? If you believe you asked your question in good faith, try rewording it or message the mods to see if there's a way you could ask more neutrally. Thanks for your understanding!
---
*This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.*
*If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
Pre 2016, I'd say no. However, on this side of things, it's making sense. There is a very real possibility that the 2024 election will be two geriatrics competing for office and the third parties will decide which one wins, and it won't be what the majority want.
Have you seen pictures of him lately?
He's well past the point of being able to hide that frog chin and liver spots.
Dude looks like he's got less than 3 years left to live.
>Have you seen pictures of him lately?
I've seen a lot of desaturated photoshopped pics of him appearing on the front page of reddit which look nothing like the original pics so I'm skeptical of how bad he really looks
Of course, this will be the first presidential election since mass access to AI generated art so who even knows or cares what's real anymore.
I've been saying for decades we should revamp our voting system where instead of picking a person, you go in the booth and vote your stance on various policies. The person who aligns with the most voted policies gets elected, and if they end up working against any of those policies we bring out the guillotine.
I'm sick of identity politics I don't care if someone sniffs women's hair or high fived a KKK member 70 years ago I just want someone to actually follow through with campaign promises.
> I've been saying for decades we should revamp our voting system where instead of picking a person, you go in the booth and vote your stance on various policies. The person who aligns with the most voted policies gets elected, and if they end up working against any of those policies we bring out the guillotine.
There's a lot more to a politician than just what policies they support. Can they get those policies to actually pass? Can they write those policies to effectively avoid loopholes and abuses by bad-faith actors? How willing are they to compromise with other politicians I support?
What we really need is better accountability for our politicians to weed out all the ones acting in bad faith. What that looks like I don't know.
2008: McCain 72, Obama 47
2012: Romney 65, Obama 51
2016: Trump 70, Hillary 69
2020: Trump 74, Biden 78
So in the last fifteen years we've had *one* candidate who didn't qualify for membership in the AARP (which he did by the time his second turn rolled around), and he was also the only candidate who would have been more than eight years away from being seventy upon taking office.
Biden will be 82 years old in 2024, Trump will be 78, and as things currently stand the only other high profile candidate for a party's nomination is Desantis who would actually be a little bit younger than Obama was
In both the 2016 and 2020 Democratic Primaries the runner-up was Bernie Sanders (and in 2020 third place went to Warren) both of whom were also in their seventies (IIRC Warren was 69 initially but turned 70 during the primary).
I’m suddenly getting the whole ‘a-bunch-of-grown-ups-who-still-feel-21-sitting-around-a-campfire-staring-at-the-flames-without-seeing-while-someone-plays-harmonica-and-we-were-all-just-informed-no one-brought-the-fucking-s’mores’ sort of vibe going on here.
Why? Our average age for senators is 71. There are 3 senators born before the chocolate chip cookie. They accurately represent their voters. If the youth dont vote, old people do. People vote for people that represent them
Yep I was going to reply with this same message when I saw yours. I think we should have a maximum age to entry, and a minimum time of public service to enter as well. Granted the presidency should be open to anyone, as it is now,m, but it should have a minimum requirement beyond that of a popularity contest. Public service should be a minimum of 10 years prior to being about to lane a it for presidency. Just my opinion (of which I have many)
I think there should be an age limit to all offices of power. Theres no reason a ~~wheelchair bound~~ dementia patient should be making decisions on behalf of a country. This is insane.
Also I just found out Rosalynn Carter was diagnosed with dementia today.
He also spoke for 24 hours straight to filibuster in opposition against the Civil Rights Act of 57.
He spoke against the the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement and was still office until 2003. Thats a fucking problem.
And he was Pro Tempore in 2001. Thats also a fucking problem.
As a younger man, Thurmond never took the Senate office building elevator, he always took the stairs, two steps at a time. His staff hated that. I was no fan of Thurmond.
dementia patient of course not, but i would be fine with another president whos a wheelchair user. disabled rights are really lagging behind the modern age and i hope for a president that can improve that
edit: oh my GOD. i know greg abbot is a wheelchair user. stop commenting 'lol like greg abbot", i get it
hence why i said another president who uses a wheelchair. it would also be nice if that president didnt have to hide their disability for the sake of their public image. FDR was a wheelchair user, but the amount of shame and hiding of that face when he was president is a dark reminder of how mobility aids have been and are still seen as a bad thing
Definitely not as popular as FDR but Madison Cawthorn is in a wheelchair due to a car accident that left him paralyzed. That shouldn’t prevent him from running for office.
The multiple sexual harassment claims against him are another story.
Greg Abbott is in a wheelchair from paralysis as well, and Senator Duckworth from Illinois can only walk with prosthetic legs and a cane but usually just stays in her wheelchair after losing her legs
My mom passed due to ALS 4 years ago. Before she passed (obviously) I went Christmas shopping with her in her electric wheelchair. I literally had to jog to keep up.
I miss her and this was my first thought, just wanted to share.
old people who use mobility aids are disabled. age itself isnt a disability, there are plenty of old people who move just fine without aids
my point was just that the issue is with people who are mentally unfit to serve office. people can need mobility aids and still serve the government just fine
And the point of the comment was that we shouldn’t be even able to elect 80 year olds, not because they are wheelchair bound or disabled but because they are so old.
Dianne Feinsteins primary caregiver is Pelosi’s daughter. Which wouldn’t be an issue if Feinstein wasn’t still a sitting US Senator.
If you require a caregiver you are not fit for federal office. It’s theoretically possible you could have to assume the presidency and that person needs to be physically and mentally fit.
> If you require a caregiver you are not fit for federal office.
Only if it's on the basis of mental capacity. Being physically incapable doesn't mean you're mentally incapable.
In Feinstein's case though it's very clearly both.
That's just not true. The Succession Act of 1947 explicitly states who is in the line of succession.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D7952%26context%3Dmlr&ved=2ahUKEwiDxa3I2Z7_AhVzFlkFHTaEAuMQFnoECCQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3lW_t4KAQzctzUN18Sk7Zx
https://www.usa.gov/presidential-succession
https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/president-pro-tempore/presidential-succession-act.htm
What you're referring to is continuity of government. They have people stay back so, just in case, we still have two houses and a court to run the government until they are replaced. The line of succession to the president is a specific list. VP, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, heads of the cabinet departments in order. There are exactly 18 members in the line of succession.
Feinstein is not in the line of succession. She cannot assume the presidency.
Well I do believe they go through physical and psychological testing before they are deemed fit. However I'd prefer someone who's worked at a Wendy's before and truly understands the hardships most us us face. Im Done with these rich two faced bags of shit pretending they understand the common person. I had to make my Mom ey through hard work, daddy only gifted me one emerald mine.
Given how it is, I'd propose the "niiiiiiiiiice-est" possibility for it: The 420/69 law.
If you want to run for President, on the election's inauguration day, you can be no younger than 420 months old [35 years, the minimum], and no older than 69 years old (if you'll turn 70 during your term, you must not seek re-election.)
This is tough because I have an idealistic and a practical answer.
The idealist would say that it is up to voters to choose who they elect and we should trust the voters to make the right decision.
The practical person would say well look at who we do elect, and maybe we need some guardrails.
As I get older I am more and more in the second camp.
I agree here.
I never thought it mattered before, but seeing what’s unfolding, absolutely YES.
Pilots, air traffic controllers, etc. have age limits and forced retirement for public safely. It shouldn’t be any different for someone with the capability to destroy the free world.
Presidential elections that result in what most people want are few and far between in the history of American democracy. A democratic republic is, by design, all about compromise. That is a silly point to hammer home. Having most people get what they want is not, and has never been, the purpose of our government. The problem is having confidence in our leadership, that they have the baseline mental fortitude it takes to do the job competently, whether they are actually competent or not. People who are too old, while they may have what it takes, don't inspire that confidence.
It’s because primary voters are very disproportionately old people
And general voters are still mostly old people
And old people love another old person telling young people how things used to be
Yes, there should be a maximum age for any government official. People shouldn't be allowed to make laws they're not going to live to see the effects of.
In Canada it’s 75 for our Supreme Court justices. Should be the same for the states to be fair. Idk I don’t trust a 90 year old passing down a law that can change everything when they were alive to see sliced bread
It sounds good but I don't know if bad long term policy is actually age dependent. The rejection of global warming spans all demographics. It comes down to non-scientific thinking.
Yeah, you don't know how long someone will live though. Unless you know their expiration date how do you know they won't live to see the laws they enact. Also when have ex-presidents ever really been subject to those laws anyway. If you want to do away with career politicians you impose term limits, not age restrictions.
As much as I like RBG, her unwillingness to retire pissed me off. There's a story going around that she didn't want to retire until a female president was in power to choose her replacement. I don't know if it's true, but it certainly sounds believable.
Yeah name any business corporation etc. Who would allow somebody to be running the entire show at age 90. Unless they actually owned the business or corporation there's no way that would be allowed.
In the US, commercial airline pilots can no longer fly, in most cases, after they reach the age of 65.
Do you know why? It's because that's around the age that there's a sharp increase in the likelihood of that pilot crashing the plane into a fucking mountain.
But we're fine with letting that same pilot's dad try to drive our entire country off a cliff?
^edited ^for ^spelling
I believe the minimum age was taken from the Romans to stop highly charismatic people with no political experience getting in. It was probably unheard of to have someone older than that with no political experience get elected to office. Trump had no previous experience and Obama was also criticized for his lack of experience during election. The law is practically pointless now imho.
Edit: By Roman’s I mean the founding fathers copied a lot from the Roman Republican when drafting the American constitution
What qualifies as enough life experience though? Personally I think the public should be the one's to decide that when they vote. If people don't want a president in their early 20s then they won't vote for them, and if everyone wants someone in their early 20s to be president then why shouldn't they be allowed to?
Right?
"But then we'd be discriminating against seniors!"
As if a 35-year old minimum isn't discriminatory toward younger people. Cognitive decline at old age is a real issue, especially when it comes to being at the figurative steering wheel of our country. Not to mention being out of touch culturally from current generations.
Exactly. We have a lot of heinously dumb shit that stands currently just because it would be an incredibly uphill battle to undo. That's not a good justification for doubling down on a bad idea.
Sometimes what is healthy, isn't always popular. Like when FDR went for three terms. The argument for limiting that, was consolidation of power over a longer time is easier.
Why would it be different for the other branches? Here is a hint. It's not.
i think most people are just getting tired of old people making laws that won't affect them in about 5 years while being completely out of touch with the country.
I mean most our legislators are rich people who aren't going to truly be affected by many of their policies at any point.
That's an argument for why we need to examine what's breaking down in the democratic process that nobody likes the officials they elect, not really for a specific age range/income limit/other arbitrary metric that *should* already be factored into who gets votes and who doesn't
If most people are getting tired of old people making laws that won't affect them in about 5 years while being completely out of touch with the country ... why dont they just not vote for them?
If "the people" really didnt want super old people running democracies theyd stop voting for them or vote them out at the primary stage.
The bottom line is that the real problem with democracy isnt old or lousy law makers, its that "the people" dont care.
The primaries don't fix the problem, since everyone is trying to show that they are pushing the party line the most. It's the reason why so many of our elections end up being the choice between two crazies.
Now, if ALL of the candidates from ALL parties were in a single primary, and the two highest voted, regardless of party, were in the final election... then we would start to see more reasonable candidates being selected.
EDIT: I should have been clear, I was talking about congressional primaries. Presidential primaries and the presidential election are very different from congressional elections, and I agree that they do tend toward "electability" over anything else.
You're misusing those terms. A direct democracy wouldn't have a president or legislative body because every issue would be voted on directly, so no elections would exist. Additionally, most countries in the world have a representative democracy and in most presidential systems the president is elected by a popular vote.
I get what you're trying to say, I just figured I'd let you know that what you're actually saying isn't true. Tbh I'm not sure what the name is of the presidential election system we have is.
Honestly, I’d be okay with making basic current tech literacy a requirement. The grifters and vultures in tech are getting out of control while these old coots don’t even read half the laws they sign.
Term limits for Congress would just turn into a revolving door of people pushing the party line, in exchange for the party or corporations setting them up with nice cushy jobs after they've done what they're told to do.
California enacted term limits in 1990. Since then, there’s been an endless revolving door where politicians serve their maximum 12 years in the state legislature, then it’s time for that House seat, baby
It's difficult to answer this because society often changes faster than legislation.
Go just 15-25 years into the future, dementia Alzheimer's and age related cognitive decline may be wholly prevented by a vaccination or prophylactic drug therapy starting in your 40s, ensuring lifelong mental clarity, if not necessarily longer life.
Executive leadership in most Western democracies don't make decisions in a vacuum. They are surrounded by advisors, hold frequent meetings with legislators from their own political party, and opposition leaders, working toward mutually acceptable compromises.
National security and military issues introduce rooms full of political, diplomatic and military experts to the conversation. Economists, finance, banking, industry, science, medical, technology experts enter other discussions.
Clearly, this question is driven by the fact the US is likely heading toward a general election with two men , either of whom would be the oldest president in history to hold office.
One has to weigh the argument that a lifetime of broad experience is valuable in decision making against the possibility that the executive may have age related cognitive decline.
The US president is already tested for cognitive abilities, as well as their annual physical. If they are found to be medically unfit to perform the duties of their office, the procedure is already in place to effect seamless transfer of power.
"Should there be an age limit?" Yes, but it should limit the President's age on inauguration day, and should probably be higher than you think. If they are suffering decline, it will become obvious to the voters during months on the grueling campaign trail and multiple televised live debates, and voters will solve the question at the ballot box.
Political parties will also take this concern into consideration internally during their meetings very early in the process before candidates have even declared, and will dissuade persons from running if it is felt they cannot secure a win for their party during the general election.
> Yes, but it should limit the President's age on inauguration day, and should probably be higher than you think
Yeah I was surprised to see how far off I was when it comes to life expectancy at inauguration day. Even someone as old as Biden can pretty comfortably bet that he'll make it through a second term. The odds don't turn against someone until age 91. After that, their life expectancy is less than 4 years.
Age is far from a determining factor in what a person can do. There are 75 year olds that are sound in mind and mentally compromised people that are 40.
There shouldn't be an age limit, people should just vote for sane presidents.
So you'd argue that there shouldn't be a minimum age limit of 35 either then. There are 20 year olds that have the maturity of people much older. Just vote for sane people regardless of age and there should be no age limit altogether.
You can be sane and still be completely out of touch with 80% of the population. There’s pretty sane and rational 21 year olds as well but they aren’t old enough to run for president. So absolutely 100% there should be a max age limit
no. because, in a democracy, if you don't like old people you don't have to vote for them.
the last election had record voters, on both sides, voting for two old guys. the guy that won the vote is doing (mostly) what he said he would do and the other guy was doing (mostly) what he said he was going to do before. in both cases the respective constituencies are/were happy with the person they voted for. *that's* democracy. and none of it has anything to do with age.
In conjunction with term limits it makes perfect sense. Age at the time of swearing they must be between 35 and 60. You'll never have a president older than 64. If they want to have a chance at a full 8 they have to get in the game at age 56.
This is a solution in search of a problem.
There have been few cases in which actual age per se has impeded a president's judgment more than it was when they were younger.
Biden, who seemed too old to me, has achieved remarkable things given the shit sandwich of a Congress he was served. It's unlikely that any other candidate in the 2020 primaries could have managed what Biden has.
The 4-year terms are already an impediment to a non compos mentis president lasting too long. We might re-think the 25th Amendment, though.
Feinstein, who shouldn't have been re-elected in 2018, is only a problem because Senate terms are 6 years.
>This is a solution in search of a problem.
>There have been few cases in which actual age per se has impeded a president's judgment more than it was when they were younger.
I see your point, but I disagree if one gives more context to which problem is being solved here. If the only thing in question is mental faculties, you could argue that this is so case-by-case that any age limit (minimum or maximum) is not warranted. People at age 18 could, on a case by case basis, be ready to govern if only mental faculties are considered.
But we consider age for other reasons too. On the minimum side, experience and maturity are factors. I believe there was also some intent that political office in the United States should not be a career. By 1787 standards, 35 was fairly older. You'd be done raising your family, probably have your security established, and be relatively free to serve terms in office without worrying about your career prospects.
My point is that there were a lot of qualitative reasons to establish a minimum age. And so why can't there be qualitative reasons to establish a maximum age?
Aside from data on the likelihood of mental impairment, which does increase with age, other factors come in too.
For one, it would set a soft-cap on political careers. This is healthy in a democracy. For another, our longer life expectancy has created the largest gap in human history between elderly generations and the young working generation. Young workers are being represented by people 40 or 60 years senior to them. This disparity has never been wider. Also, a death in office does create instability. While anyone can die at any time, common sense would say we shouldn't elect someone who is 101 years old into the presidency because they could die any day. That's an extreme example, and a fiction, but anyone who is living beyond the average life expectancy may very reasonably die in office.
Finally, I think that we don't have a lot of data sets because we just haven't had this many politicians serving at this age... Ever? Some exceptions, sure. But if we're looking to history for examples of very old, senile presidents, of course we won't find that.
I think this is a relatively new issue in this decade because we are hitting relatively new degrees of geriatric politicians. The Baby Boomer generation was so numerous, so long lived, and Boomer politicians apparently won't retire. They will die in office. I think, again, this damages democracy. An age cap could stifle that.
Just to be pedantic, as a boomer myself - a lot of these politicians you’re complaining about aren’t boomers. Joe Biden isn’t a boomer and the people older than him sure as heck aren’t either.
You're right - he is Silent Generation. But the Boomer generation spans a much wider range than the subsequent ones. And so a lot of the oldest politicians are Boomers.
As an aside, I think generational studies are largely garbage anyway. I use the terms for convenience. Every generation has every kind of person. Outside of discussing (current) age groups I usually don't find them useful.
I’m a boomer Canadian and I do find it odd your politicians skew so much older than ours on average. Up here Justin Trudeau is the old guy - his rivals are younger.
People have been against universal suffrage forever. Sometimes they package it nicely like Handey or Churchill. Other times, not so much.
You could be too woman, too black, too peasant to vote. (or felon).
Point is, the only system we know to work well is letting any old yokel vote.
Instead of instituting hoops to try to address the symptom, get at the root of the sickness.
We need ranked choice voting & we need campaign financing reform & we need higher primary engagement
No. Someone's mental ability can be judged by a voter and that's enough. If someone is clearly unable to do the job and they get voted in anyways, something is wrong with the system itself, not an arbitrary age-limiting law. I'm looking at you dumb two party system!
Side note -- most governing at the national level is done by underlings. The president does have the final say, but any dipshit can make someone order a cobb salad if their only choices are an apple and a slice of bread. Presidents are ultimately there so that they can draw criticism away from those who are suggesting and implementing policy.
So, what really matters is who is this person hanging around with? If they're morally ok people with moderate views and administrative experience -- that's whose going to run the government. If they blame all problems on others, have extremist views, and have no idea who the deputy director of xyz agency is -- that's also exactly who is going to run the government.
Look at just the history of the USA. Both Nancy Reagan and Edith Wilson basically became chief of staff/shadow President AND NO ONE \*\*\*\*\*\*\* NOTICED!!!!
tldr -- The president's mental ability doesn't matter as much you might think. What really matters is who he surrounds themself with during the campaign and after they become president.
No. The more restrictions we put on who can run for office the farther we get away from a representative democracy. This also includes on who can vote.
Y’all act like the old politicians aren’t directly elected by you people. Like I get Biden, trump, Feinstein and whatever are old, yet YOU MFS PUT THEM THERE. They weren’t appointed to their offices by god or anything, they keep winning primaries and elections despite their age because people keep voting for them. People talk about money and stuff but super pacs just give you money for advertising, no amount of 30 second unskippable ads can hide the fact that Biden is old, yet the man breezed through the primaries despite Bloomberg outspending everyone and getting like 2% of the vote. Bottom line is that you people put them there and you people can put younger people there too. If you need to implement laws to prevent politicians from winning legitimate elections, you’re not in the right.
Thanks for your submission /u/WheelsThrowaway2023, but it has been removed for the following reason: Disallowed question area: **Rant or loaded question** NoStupidQuestions is a place to ask any question as long as *it's asked in good faith*. Our users routinely report questions that they feel violate this rule to us. Want to avoid your question being seen as a bad faith question? Common mistakes include (but are not limited to): * Rants: Could your question be answered with *'That's awful'* or *'What an asshole'*? Then it's probably a rant rather than a genuine question. Looking for a place to vent on Reddit? Try /r/TrueOffMyChest or /r/Rant instead. * Loaded questions: Could your question be answered with *'You're right'*? Answering the question yourself, explaining your reasoning for your opinion, or making sweeping assumptions about the question itself all signals that you may not be keeping an open mind. Want to know why people have a different opinion than you? Try /r/ExplainBothSides instead! * Arguments: Arguing or [sealioning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lioning) with people giving you answers tells everyone that you have an answer in mind already. Want a good debate? Try /r/ChangeMyView instead! * Pot Stirring: Did you bring up unnecessary topics in your question? Especially when a topic has to do with already controversial issues like politics, race, gender or sex, this can be seen as trying to score points against the Other Side - and that makes people defensive, which leads to arguments. Questions like *"If _____ is allowed, why isn't _____?"* don't need to have that comparison - just ask *'why isn't ____ allowed?'*. * Complaining about moderation: If you disagree with how the sub is run or a decision the mods have made, that's fine! But please share your thoughts with us in modmail rather than as a public post. Disagree with the mods? If you believe you asked your question in good faith, try rewording it or message the mods to see if there's a way you could ask more neutrally. Thanks for your understanding! --- *This action was performed by a bot at the explicit direction of a human. This was not an automated action, but a conscious decision by a sapient life form charged with moderating this sub.* *If you feel this was in error, or need more clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FNoStupidQuestions). Thanks.*
Pre 2016, I'd say no. However, on this side of things, it's making sense. There is a very real possibility that the 2024 election will be two geriatrics competing for office and the third parties will decide which one wins, and it won't be what the majority want.
2020 already was 2 geriatrics competing.
Yeah lol I feel like people forget how old Trump is because of how hard he tries to hide it
Have you seen pictures of him lately? He's well past the point of being able to hide that frog chin and liver spots. Dude looks like he's got less than 3 years left to live.
Given the way the universe rewards evil and punishes good, Trump will probably live forever.
That's how Mitch McConnell is still alive. No reason that walking doughball should still be working
He still has a musket ball lodged in his shell from the Civil War.
He needs a musket ball to the face.
Henry fucking Kissinger just turned 100 4 days ago
Wow, I thought for sure he died a few years ago.
I have a theory that Rupert Murdoch died a long time ago. The deal he made with the devil ensures his body is still just shuffling about.
What scares me about Murdoch is that he'll live long enough for some idiot to come up with a way he can live forever.
Well, it's believed that large turtles can live to 400 years old.
*Pelosi entered the chat*
Feinstein is confused about who is chatting.
And Kissinger?
The real test is when Kissinger finally expires, we might see some good rubber banding back towards good.
Henry Kissinger used OPEC to achieve lichdom.
Well he's literally 100 years old, so keep waiting.
Motherfucker just turned 100 a few days ago
No. He'll die. But he'll die at home in his bed surrounded by his family and before he ever sees a single day of justice.
>Have you seen pictures of him lately? I've seen a lot of desaturated photoshopped pics of him appearing on the front page of reddit which look nothing like the original pics so I'm skeptical of how bad he really looks Of course, this will be the first presidential election since mass access to AI generated art so who even knows or cares what's real anymore. I've been saying for decades we should revamp our voting system where instead of picking a person, you go in the booth and vote your stance on various policies. The person who aligns with the most voted policies gets elected, and if they end up working against any of those policies we bring out the guillotine. I'm sick of identity politics I don't care if someone sniffs women's hair or high fived a KKK member 70 years ago I just want someone to actually follow through with campaign promises.
> I've been saying for decades we should revamp our voting system where instead of picking a person, you go in the booth and vote your stance on various policies. The person who aligns with the most voted policies gets elected, and if they end up working against any of those policies we bring out the guillotine. There's a lot more to a politician than just what policies they support. Can they get those policies to actually pass? Can they write those policies to effectively avoid loopholes and abuses by bad-faith actors? How willing are they to compromise with other politicians I support? What we really need is better accountability for our politicians to weed out all the ones acting in bad faith. What that looks like I don't know.
> Dude looks like he's got less than 3 years left to live. We can only hope.
2008: McCain 72, Obama 47 2012: Romney 65, Obama 51 2016: Trump 70, Hillary 69 2020: Trump 74, Biden 78 So in the last fifteen years we've had *one* candidate who didn't qualify for membership in the AARP (which he did by the time his second turn rolled around), and he was also the only candidate who would have been more than eight years away from being seventy upon taking office. Biden will be 82 years old in 2024, Trump will be 78, and as things currently stand the only other high profile candidate for a party's nomination is Desantis who would actually be a little bit younger than Obama was In both the 2016 and 2020 Democratic Primaries the runner-up was Bernie Sanders (and in 2020 third place went to Warren) both of whom were also in their seventies (IIRC Warren was 69 initially but turned 70 during the primary).
I’m suddenly getting the whole ‘a-bunch-of-grown-ups-who-still-feel-21-sitting-around-a-campfire-staring-at-the-flames-without-seeing-while-someone-plays-harmonica-and-we-were-all-just-informed-no one-brought-the-fucking-s’mores’ sort of vibe going on here.
If you told me in 2016 that Trump would be the *youngest* frontrunner for 2020, I'd have thought you were insane.
Why? Our average age for senators is 71. There are 3 senators born before the chocolate chip cookie. They accurately represent their voters. If the youth dont vote, old people do. People vote for people that represent them
Yep I was going to reply with this same message when I saw yours. I think we should have a maximum age to entry, and a minimum time of public service to enter as well. Granted the presidency should be open to anyone, as it is now,m, but it should have a minimum requirement beyond that of a popularity contest. Public service should be a minimum of 10 years prior to being about to lane a it for presidency. Just my opinion (of which I have many)
So was 2016
I think there should be an age limit to all offices of power. Theres no reason a ~~wheelchair bound~~ dementia patient should be making decisions on behalf of a country. This is insane. Also I just found out Rosalynn Carter was diagnosed with dementia today.
Strom Thurman was 100, wheel chair bound, and didn’t know what planet he was on.
He also spoke for 24 hours straight to filibuster in opposition against the Civil Rights Act of 57. He spoke against the the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement and was still office until 2003. Thats a fucking problem. And he was Pro Tempore in 2001. Thats also a fucking problem.
As a younger man, Thurmond never took the Senate office building elevator, he always took the stairs, two steps at a time. His staff hated that. I was no fan of Thurmond.
dementia patient of course not, but i would be fine with another president whos a wheelchair user. disabled rights are really lagging behind the modern age and i hope for a president that can improve that edit: oh my GOD. i know greg abbot is a wheelchair user. stop commenting 'lol like greg abbot", i get it
**FDR**
Hence the use of *another*
hence why i said another president who uses a wheelchair. it would also be nice if that president didnt have to hide their disability for the sake of their public image. FDR was a wheelchair user, but the amount of shame and hiding of that face when he was president is a dark reminder of how mobility aids have been and are still seen as a bad thing
[удалено]
[удалено]
Definitely not as popular as FDR but Madison Cawthorn is in a wheelchair due to a car accident that left him paralyzed. That shouldn’t prevent him from running for office. The multiple sexual harassment claims against him are another story.
Greg Abbott is in a wheelchair from paralysis as well, and Senator Duckworth from Illinois can only walk with prosthetic legs and a cane but usually just stays in her wheelchair after losing her legs
I’m sorry, *I THOUGHT IT WAS A PRESIDENTIAL RACE*
Strap a v8 on that bad boy and wheelchair candidate would be running laps around the competition.
My mom passed due to ALS 4 years ago. Before she passed (obviously) I went Christmas shopping with her in her electric wheelchair. I literally had to jog to keep up. I miss her and this was my first thought, just wanted to share.
I use my scooter when I vacation mostly and I’m a speed demon. Trying to break down stereotypes one day at a time
>wheelchair candidate would be running laps ^running
Rolling laps
Replace the tires with rubber feet
One trip to a Nascar event.....hear me out
I read "residential race," like old folks in an old folks home.
I’d watch this and bet on it
Diane Feinstein is in the chat, oh wait, she doesnt know how to use modern tech. another decrepit scumbag politician
That leaves Greg Abbott out.
r/PoliticalHumor required him to be labelled a little piss baby in every comment for months.
It was a few days in response to Texas’ bs hate speech social media laws
Obviously the dude is talking about wheelchair bound due to age dude, not due to disability.
old people who use mobility aids are disabled. age itself isnt a disability, there are plenty of old people who move just fine without aids my point was just that the issue is with people who are mentally unfit to serve office. people can need mobility aids and still serve the government just fine
And the point of the comment was that we shouldn’t be even able to elect 80 year olds, not because they are wheelchair bound or disabled but because they are so old.
Dianne Feinsteins primary caregiver is Pelosi’s daughter. Which wouldn’t be an issue if Feinstein wasn’t still a sitting US Senator. If you require a caregiver you are not fit for federal office. It’s theoretically possible you could have to assume the presidency and that person needs to be physically and mentally fit.
> If you require a caregiver you are not fit for federal office. Only if it's on the basis of mental capacity. Being physically incapable doesn't mean you're mentally incapable. In Feinstein's case though it's very clearly both.
Feinstein is not in the line of succession. As much as I agree with your overall point, it is not possible for her to assume the presidency.
[удалено]
That's just not true. The Succession Act of 1947 explicitly states who is in the line of succession. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D7952%26context%3Dmlr&ved=2ahUKEwiDxa3I2Z7_AhVzFlkFHTaEAuMQFnoECCQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3lW_t4KAQzctzUN18Sk7Zx https://www.usa.gov/presidential-succession https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/president-pro-tempore/presidential-succession-act.htm What you're referring to is continuity of government. They have people stay back so, just in case, we still have two houses and a court to run the government until they are replaced. The line of succession to the president is a specific list. VP, Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, heads of the cabinet departments in order. There are exactly 18 members in the line of succession. Feinstein is not in the line of succession. She cannot assume the presidency.
Well I do believe they go through physical and psychological testing before they are deemed fit. However I'd prefer someone who's worked at a Wendy's before and truly understands the hardships most us us face. Im Done with these rich two faced bags of shit pretending they understand the common person. I had to make my Mom ey through hard work, daddy only gifted me one emerald mine.
maybe we say once a person reaches the age of retirement, they can no longer hold office.
Given how it is, I'd propose the "niiiiiiiiiice-est" possibility for it: The 420/69 law. If you want to run for President, on the election's inauguration day, you can be no younger than 420 months old [35 years, the minimum], and no older than 69 years old (if you'll turn 70 during your term, you must not seek re-election.)
*SECONDED* if we bang a gavel now, it becomes a rule.
Well they keep pushing the retirement age up so retirement age would be 100 by the end of the next cycle.
Damn, I was only two days from retirement
This is tough because I have an idealistic and a practical answer. The idealist would say that it is up to voters to choose who they elect and we should trust the voters to make the right decision. The practical person would say well look at who we do elect, and maybe we need some guardrails. As I get older I am more and more in the second camp.
There's a minimum age requirement right? This wouldn't be any different. We can already only vote for the limited options provided.
I agree here. I never thought it mattered before, but seeing what’s unfolding, absolutely YES. Pilots, air traffic controllers, etc. have age limits and forced retirement for public safely. It shouldn’t be any different for someone with the capability to destroy the free world.
Same with military, even guard and reservists are forced to retire at a certain age.
Yep. Even a 4 star general can't serve after the age of 64. We should have the same standard for all government officials.
Presidential elections that result in what most people want are few and far between in the history of American democracy. A democratic republic is, by design, all about compromise. That is a silly point to hammer home. Having most people get what they want is not, and has never been, the purpose of our government. The problem is having confidence in our leadership, that they have the baseline mental fortitude it takes to do the job competently, whether they are actually competent or not. People who are too old, while they may have what it takes, don't inspire that confidence.
I find it hard to believe that the voters would be so stupid to choose either option to represent their party.
There’s no choice for democrats unfortunately. A primary challenge to an incumbent is unheard of
They just did in 2020, why do you think that would change in 2024?
It’s because primary voters are very disproportionately old people And general voters are still mostly old people And old people love another old person telling young people how things used to be
Yes, there should be a maximum age for any government official. People shouldn't be allowed to make laws they're not going to live to see the effects of.
In Canada it’s 75 for our Supreme Court justices. Should be the same for the states to be fair. Idk I don’t trust a 90 year old passing down a law that can change everything when they were alive to see sliced bread
My grandfather (born 1892, died when I was 7) disapproved of pre-sliced bread. I once saw him slicing a loaf and supposed he was a baker.
I saw sliced bread this morning. I’m only 41. I have given a 3 year old relative a sandwich made of sliced bread.
Obviously they meant "sliced bread be invented"
To be honest I don't really trust 75 yo judges either. I would like to see the job limited to 65.
I still think 75 is too high. 60-65 should be the limit.
I don’t know if I’d trust a lot of 75 years olds with that power either. Source: am around people 70+ a lot
[удалено]
Trump definitely would put a monarchical system in place to keep it in the family forever.
He openly spoke about how one day the US should have a "President for Life"
The sad thing is in normal times this would be a death knell to any politician career... where "binders full of women" is enough to tank an election.
dingell family, Michigan. 89 years of one\* House of Representatives seat.
It sounds good but I don't know if bad long term policy is actually age dependent. The rejection of global warming spans all demographics. It comes down to non-scientific thinking.
Yeah, you don't know how long someone will live though. Unless you know their expiration date how do you know they won't live to see the laws they enact. Also when have ex-presidents ever really been subject to those laws anyway. If you want to do away with career politicians you impose term limits, not age restrictions.
[удалено]
You can figure a ~5-10 year take pretty accurately. Put the upper range limit on the bottom of that, and boom
Absolutely yes. And being appointed SCOTUS.
Supreme Court justices are getting younger because the party that chooses them want them in there for as long as possible
Give them a mandatory retirement age. Having fossils more interested in playing political football with each other is a disaster.
Agreed. RBG should have been in retirement at least a decade before she died.
As much as I like RBG, her unwillingness to retire pissed me off. There's a story going around that she didn't want to retire until a female president was in power to choose her replacement. I don't know if it's true, but it certainly sounds believable.
Same. It ended up causing much worse problems and will continue to cause problems.
And most importantly... none of these problems affect RBG.
That's the real issue. They have no real stake outside of pride and "purpose."
Senators as well. See Dianne Feinstein, about to turn 90. She barely remembers her staffers' names.
Yeah name any business corporation etc. Who would allow somebody to be running the entire show at age 90. Unless they actually owned the business or corporation there's no way that would be allowed.
In the US, commercial airline pilots can no longer fly, in most cases, after they reach the age of 65. Do you know why? It's because that's around the age that there's a sharp increase in the likelihood of that pilot crashing the plane into a fucking mountain. But we're fine with letting that same pilot's dad try to drive our entire country off a cliff? ^edited ^for ^spelling
[удалено]
Commercial airline pilot’s reaction time is hopefully not what’s stopping them from hitting mountains
Yes. If there's a minimum age, there should be a maximum age.
I don't think there should be a minimum age (apart from voting age). If you can vote, you should be able to be elected
I think the president should have some kind of life experience.
I believe the minimum age was taken from the Romans to stop highly charismatic people with no political experience getting in. It was probably unheard of to have someone older than that with no political experience get elected to office. Trump had no previous experience and Obama was also criticized for his lack of experience during election. The law is practically pointless now imho. Edit: By Roman’s I mean the founding fathers copied a lot from the Roman Republican when drafting the American constitution
>”highly carismatic people with no political experience” Hmmmm sounds familiar
Yep lmao, if that's the purpose of the minimum age, it's clearly not working
What qualifies as enough life experience though? Personally I think the public should be the one's to decide that when they vote. If people don't want a president in their early 20s then they won't vote for them, and if everyone wants someone in their early 20s to be president then why shouldn't they be allowed to?
Naw.Fuck that.I want Kaitlyn the 22 year old gender studies major from Austin to be my president.
I trust her more than my last few
There should be age limits/restrictions and term limits for all politicians and court justices
Right? "But then we'd be discriminating against seniors!" As if a 35-year old minimum isn't discriminatory toward younger people. Cognitive decline at old age is a real issue, especially when it comes to being at the figurative steering wheel of our country. Not to mention being out of touch culturally from current generations.
Such a law is designed to achieve through force what one has been unable to achieve through democracy.
I mean, they have to be 35...if there is a min why not a max?
I would argue a bottom limit other than the legal age to be an adult is dumb, too.
Exactly. We have a lot of heinously dumb shit that stands currently just because it would be an incredibly uphill battle to undo. That's not a good justification for doubling down on a bad idea.
Gotta disagree. No 20 year old needs to be making world decisions.
But that’s the democratic method, it’s for the people to decide if they want a 20yo making them.
don’t vote for them one?
Sometimes what is healthy, isn't always popular. Like when FDR went for three terms. The argument for limiting that, was consolidation of power over a longer time is easier. Why would it be different for the other branches? Here is a hint. It's not.
The minimum age rule is bullshit. If the electorate wants a 30 year old, that is what we should have.
Neither does a 70 year old.
i think most people are just getting tired of old people making laws that won't affect them in about 5 years while being completely out of touch with the country.
I mean most our legislators are rich people who aren't going to truly be affected by many of their policies at any point. That's an argument for why we need to examine what's breaking down in the democratic process that nobody likes the officials they elect, not really for a specific age range/income limit/other arbitrary metric that *should* already be factored into who gets votes and who doesn't
If “most people” were tired of it, then why do we need a law? “Most people” would vote for a younger candidate then, surely?
There are two old men competing for it...
If most people are getting tired of old people making laws that won't affect them in about 5 years while being completely out of touch with the country ... why dont they just not vote for them? If "the people" really didnt want super old people running democracies theyd stop voting for them or vote them out at the primary stage. The bottom line is that the real problem with democracy isnt old or lousy law makers, its that "the people" dont care.
Bruh my choices are a geriatric man and a different geriatric man.
Because 2 party system
People can still vote in their primaries
The primaries don't fix the problem, since everyone is trying to show that they are pushing the party line the most. It's the reason why so many of our elections end up being the choice between two crazies. Now, if ALL of the candidates from ALL parties were in a single primary, and the two highest voted, regardless of party, were in the final election... then we would start to see more reasonable candidates being selected. EDIT: I should have been clear, I was talking about congressional primaries. Presidential primaries and the presidential election are very different from congressional elections, and I agree that they do tend toward "electability" over anything else.
The argument could be made that democracy hasn’t decided 2 of the last 6 presidential elections.
And? Does an age limit solve that problem? Or should we focus on getting rid of the electoral college system instead?
A representative democracy has, regardless of what a direct democracy may or may not have done if the voting structure was different.
You're misusing those terms. A direct democracy wouldn't have a president or legislative body because every issue would be voted on directly, so no elections would exist. Additionally, most countries in the world have a representative democracy and in most presidential systems the president is elected by a popular vote. I get what you're trying to say, I just figured I'd let you know that what you're actually saying isn't true. Tbh I'm not sure what the name is of the presidential election system we have is.
If you don't know what email is then you shouldnt run for any position.
Honestly, I’d be okay with making basic current tech literacy a requirement. The grifters and vultures in tech are getting out of control while these old coots don’t even read half the laws they sign.
yes. as well term limits for all of congress.
Term limits for Congress would just turn into a revolving door of people pushing the party line, in exchange for the party or corporations setting them up with nice cushy jobs after they've done what they're told to do.
California enacted term limits in 1990. Since then, there’s been an endless revolving door where politicians serve their maximum 12 years in the state legislature, then it’s time for that House seat, baby
*every elected position ever
This is what enables lobbying, which is why big pharma, big tech, and big agriculture to exist
Term limits would *increase* the influence of lobbying. That's not something we want.
It's difficult to answer this because society often changes faster than legislation. Go just 15-25 years into the future, dementia Alzheimer's and age related cognitive decline may be wholly prevented by a vaccination or prophylactic drug therapy starting in your 40s, ensuring lifelong mental clarity, if not necessarily longer life. Executive leadership in most Western democracies don't make decisions in a vacuum. They are surrounded by advisors, hold frequent meetings with legislators from their own political party, and opposition leaders, working toward mutually acceptable compromises. National security and military issues introduce rooms full of political, diplomatic and military experts to the conversation. Economists, finance, banking, industry, science, medical, technology experts enter other discussions. Clearly, this question is driven by the fact the US is likely heading toward a general election with two men , either of whom would be the oldest president in history to hold office. One has to weigh the argument that a lifetime of broad experience is valuable in decision making against the possibility that the executive may have age related cognitive decline. The US president is already tested for cognitive abilities, as well as their annual physical. If they are found to be medically unfit to perform the duties of their office, the procedure is already in place to effect seamless transfer of power. "Should there be an age limit?" Yes, but it should limit the President's age on inauguration day, and should probably be higher than you think. If they are suffering decline, it will become obvious to the voters during months on the grueling campaign trail and multiple televised live debates, and voters will solve the question at the ballot box. Political parties will also take this concern into consideration internally during their meetings very early in the process before candidates have even declared, and will dissuade persons from running if it is felt they cannot secure a win for their party during the general election.
> Yes, but it should limit the President's age on inauguration day, and should probably be higher than you think Yeah I was surprised to see how far off I was when it comes to life expectancy at inauguration day. Even someone as old as Biden can pretty comfortably bet that he'll make it through a second term. The odds don't turn against someone until age 91. After that, their life expectancy is less than 4 years.
Age is far from a determining factor in what a person can do. There are 75 year olds that are sound in mind and mentally compromised people that are 40. There shouldn't be an age limit, people should just vote for sane presidents.
So you'd argue that there shouldn't be a minimum age limit of 35 either then. There are 20 year olds that have the maturity of people much older. Just vote for sane people regardless of age and there should be no age limit altogether.
I agree. And I'm a little surprised by how cavalier Reddit is with it's ageism, although I shouldn't be.
You can be sane and still be completely out of touch with 80% of the population. There’s pretty sane and rational 21 year olds as well but they aren’t old enough to run for president. So absolutely 100% there should be a max age limit
If the 80% of the population voted then that wouldn't be an issue.
Age has nothing to do with being out of touch. And no 21 year old has the experience or wisdom to be a good president.
no. because, in a democracy, if you don't like old people you don't have to vote for them. the last election had record voters, on both sides, voting for two old guys. the guy that won the vote is doing (mostly) what he said he would do and the other guy was doing (mostly) what he said he was going to do before. in both cases the respective constituencies are/were happy with the person they voted for. *that's* democracy. and none of it has anything to do with age.
> the last election had record voters, on both sides, It's not like they had a lot of options eh?
In conjunction with term limits it makes perfect sense. Age at the time of swearing they must be between 35 and 60. You'll never have a president older than 64. If they want to have a chance at a full 8 they have to get in the game at age 56.
Yes. 72.
This is a solution in search of a problem. There have been few cases in which actual age per se has impeded a president's judgment more than it was when they were younger. Biden, who seemed too old to me, has achieved remarkable things given the shit sandwich of a Congress he was served. It's unlikely that any other candidate in the 2020 primaries could have managed what Biden has. The 4-year terms are already an impediment to a non compos mentis president lasting too long. We might re-think the 25th Amendment, though. Feinstein, who shouldn't have been re-elected in 2018, is only a problem because Senate terms are 6 years.
>This is a solution in search of a problem. >There have been few cases in which actual age per se has impeded a president's judgment more than it was when they were younger. I see your point, but I disagree if one gives more context to which problem is being solved here. If the only thing in question is mental faculties, you could argue that this is so case-by-case that any age limit (minimum or maximum) is not warranted. People at age 18 could, on a case by case basis, be ready to govern if only mental faculties are considered. But we consider age for other reasons too. On the minimum side, experience and maturity are factors. I believe there was also some intent that political office in the United States should not be a career. By 1787 standards, 35 was fairly older. You'd be done raising your family, probably have your security established, and be relatively free to serve terms in office without worrying about your career prospects. My point is that there were a lot of qualitative reasons to establish a minimum age. And so why can't there be qualitative reasons to establish a maximum age? Aside from data on the likelihood of mental impairment, which does increase with age, other factors come in too. For one, it would set a soft-cap on political careers. This is healthy in a democracy. For another, our longer life expectancy has created the largest gap in human history between elderly generations and the young working generation. Young workers are being represented by people 40 or 60 years senior to them. This disparity has never been wider. Also, a death in office does create instability. While anyone can die at any time, common sense would say we shouldn't elect someone who is 101 years old into the presidency because they could die any day. That's an extreme example, and a fiction, but anyone who is living beyond the average life expectancy may very reasonably die in office. Finally, I think that we don't have a lot of data sets because we just haven't had this many politicians serving at this age... Ever? Some exceptions, sure. But if we're looking to history for examples of very old, senile presidents, of course we won't find that. I think this is a relatively new issue in this decade because we are hitting relatively new degrees of geriatric politicians. The Baby Boomer generation was so numerous, so long lived, and Boomer politicians apparently won't retire. They will die in office. I think, again, this damages democracy. An age cap could stifle that.
Just to be pedantic, as a boomer myself - a lot of these politicians you’re complaining about aren’t boomers. Joe Biden isn’t a boomer and the people older than him sure as heck aren’t either.
You're right - he is Silent Generation. But the Boomer generation spans a much wider range than the subsequent ones. And so a lot of the oldest politicians are Boomers. As an aside, I think generational studies are largely garbage anyway. I use the terms for convenience. Every generation has every kind of person. Outside of discussing (current) age groups I usually don't find them useful.
I’m a boomer Canadian and I do find it odd your politicians skew so much older than ours on average. Up here Justin Trudeau is the old guy - his rivals are younger.
Chuck Grassley, who (I think) is older than Feinstein (or around the same age) was re-elected to a 6 year term last year.
Did you know she was older than the golden gate bridge? She was 4 when it was built..
Nope. Believe in democracy and let voters choose.
[удалено]
People have been against universal suffrage forever. Sometimes they package it nicely like Handey or Churchill. Other times, not so much. You could be too woman, too black, too peasant to vote. (or felon). Point is, the only system we know to work well is letting any old yokel vote.
Instead of instituting hoops to try to address the symptom, get at the root of the sickness. We need ranked choice voting & we need campaign financing reform & we need higher primary engagement
Why not let 18 year olds run for presidency too?
Indeed! Why not?
Because the founding fathers said so and its *reeeeeeeally* hard to undo constitutional stuff.
No. Someone's mental ability can be judged by a voter and that's enough. If someone is clearly unable to do the job and they get voted in anyways, something is wrong with the system itself, not an arbitrary age-limiting law. I'm looking at you dumb two party system! Side note -- most governing at the national level is done by underlings. The president does have the final say, but any dipshit can make someone order a cobb salad if their only choices are an apple and a slice of bread. Presidents are ultimately there so that they can draw criticism away from those who are suggesting and implementing policy. So, what really matters is who is this person hanging around with? If they're morally ok people with moderate views and administrative experience -- that's whose going to run the government. If they blame all problems on others, have extremist views, and have no idea who the deputy director of xyz agency is -- that's also exactly who is going to run the government. Look at just the history of the USA. Both Nancy Reagan and Edith Wilson basically became chief of staff/shadow President AND NO ONE \*\*\*\*\*\*\* NOTICED!!!! tldr -- The president's mental ability doesn't matter as much you might think. What really matters is who he surrounds themself with during the campaign and after they become president.
>AND NO ONE \*\*\*\*\*\*\* NOTICED!!!! Lots of people noticed.
Not really at the time.
>I'm looking at you dumb two party system! I'm looking at you electoral college and proportioned by land-not-people senate + gerrymandering.
No. If people want to vote them into office that’s their choice.
No. The more restrictions we put on who can run for office the farther we get away from a representative democracy. This also includes on who can vote.
Age cap for all elected officials. Term limits for the career politicians too!
I would propose universal 20 or 30 year limit in *any* combination of elected office(s). AND yearly competency tests after 60 ('cause you never know).
Heck yes. I think we need to make sure no more presidents over 70.
Y’all act like the old politicians aren’t directly elected by you people. Like I get Biden, trump, Feinstein and whatever are old, yet YOU MFS PUT THEM THERE. They weren’t appointed to their offices by god or anything, they keep winning primaries and elections despite their age because people keep voting for them. People talk about money and stuff but super pacs just give you money for advertising, no amount of 30 second unskippable ads can hide the fact that Biden is old, yet the man breezed through the primaries despite Bloomberg outspending everyone and getting like 2% of the vote. Bottom line is that you people put them there and you people can put younger people there too. If you need to implement laws to prevent politicians from winning legitimate elections, you’re not in the right.
"America" does, in that voters can choose not to elect an octogenerian.
[удалено]
Absolutely yes, they should also have to pass a FBI background check before even running.
[удалено]
> FBI I dunno.... The KGB selected the previous one and half the country loves him
No but they should have a bankruptcy minimum
Yes