Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by VotreAltesse, Oct 28, 2019.
Doesn't Joe Biden have an actual speech impediment though?
If the laws of their country say they can run they can run. But at some point there's a loss of vitality evident in people's faces, hands, and gait. Botutoxin, plastic surgery, makeup artists and personal trainers can only do so much before their efforts become futile on a candidate. If other factors such as policies and track record are excluded, at a certain point of evident visual entropy it is much harder to get people to vote for an older candidate.
It is built into elections that the people weigh, assay, and judge everything about a candidate despite the handlers' attempts at trying to hide so much from the public (oh yeah, to finally decide and pick up on one and let the other one ride is absolutely judgmental in every way on every election day). Did you ever have to finally decide? jk
I would like to see it so no one could serve as president after the age of 80, which means someone could still run for president at age 75, but they couldn't run for a second term.
In addition, it would be nice if all congressional representatives and senators were limited to two terms only.
I wasn't aware of it if he does.
He did at least as a child
Have you looked at Sacramento state legislature where assemblymen and senators are termed out and look what you end up with running for political office.
It's perfectly OK... there's lots of 'old' people running for president this time. And, if Hillary Clinton is really STOOPID enough to run for president again, she is 72 years old. All these old people, but unfortunately, the younger ones don't seem to understand anything about anything except their 'smart' phones....
To me it's really very surprising. I'm younger than Trump but nothing in this world would make me want to be President of the United States. Retirement is GOOD... and on top of that, Trump is a billionaire. Why would he want to have all the unending hatred, abuse, and bullshit of being the president dumped on him every minute of every day...?
The best part of being comfortably retired is the ability to do absolutely NOTHING. Especially on a day like we have had today on the 'Front Range' of Colorado with very cold temperatures and heavy snow. No 'rush hour' for me! Just sit in front of the fireplace, drink coffee, and say, "I made it, and now the world can kiss MY ass for a change...."
Elizabeth Warren is also 70.
That said, it should be up to the voters.
Not really. Are you saying that term limits contribute to the overwhelming Democrat majority? It would seem to me that recycling the field every two terms would weed out some of the trash, and give the minority more bites at the apple. What's your take?
Me, too! Retirement is ALL it's about....doncha love getting up in the morning and NOT have anything to do
You probably don't want to be President because your ego is fine and normal and you're not a power hungry narcissist..
But what if most of the voters would decrete that people above 70 are too old to run for presidency ?
What if for instance one day 60 % of american would says "we need an article in the constitution" to prevent people above 70 to become president ?
Furthermore, we could consider that those runners take attention that could benefit to some other.
There is other limits to run for presidency. If you're born outside USA you can't, if you're under 35, you can't. Considering your logic, shouldn't they be allowed to run ?
I never thought about that but you might be on to something.
Not going to look at every state but here in California most elected Republicans have a real occupation in the private sector to fall back on.
Most elected Democrats have never had a real job in the private sector and are professional political hacks.
There just aren't that many registered Republicans who want to run for political office.
When California put up a proposition for term limits I was on the fence. It was when I was inside the voting booth is when I made my decision...No.
I went with the argument that it takes a couple of terms as an assemblyman before you knew exactly what you were doing and how it works to legislate.
And we have seen over and over when a soon to be termed out politician or a lame duck politician who lost reelection no longer represents his constituents and is more open to bribes from lobbyist during his remaining couple of months in office.
This is how DADT was repealed in Congress during a lame duck session of Congress.
I'm of the opinion that as long as any candidate for president meets the Constitutional requirements, let the voters decide.
If you want to pass a constitutional amendment to disallow those over 70, go for it. It takes more than a simple 60% of the people:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
You are quite right! We can amend our Constitution to accomplish nearly any change, and we've already done so twenty-seven times.
Making cavalier decisions about something like a candidate's (or a president's) "mental-competency" or "fitness-for-office" can be a very dangerous thing, however! I can easily remember when the old Soviet Union would lock people up it didn't like in mental institutions because it pronounced that they were mentally unstable. And, taking a good, hard look at today's radical Democrats, I don't doubt for a moment that they would do the very same thing to get rid of (or prevent the election of) anyone they didn't like... and simply use "age" as the necessary leverage....
. "Hush, old man -- and take your medicine!"
As an 89 year old, I resent the question. Some people over 40 shouldn't be considered but let the voters decide, as you said.
I would support an amendment requiring some sort of civil service test for those seeking federal office. Period.
Anyone running for president should be able to run or at least walk very fast. (with an exception for FDR types)
"taking a good, hard look at today's radical Democrats,"
Would you care to take a guess at the average age of today's radical Democrats?
After noon, you can pour a little bourbon or brandy in that coffee too...
they could be calcified in ignorance or be rich with experience and wisdom.
Even millennials should be frightened listening to the next group coming up.
Boomers are an enormous percentage of the population today, but Millennials and Gen Z'er's are larger together. So, is it 'game-over' for anybody but those who want "free stuff" out of life...? Because they were forced by the government to pay into Social Security and Medicare all their lives, Boomers EARNED their retirement benefits -- but what have Millennials and Gen Z'er's actually earned...?!
Clearly, it requires no effort to simply sit on your ass and wait for the government to you what you want....
But, do we really want another president who is really, really OLD...?
"Have you looked at Sacramento state legislature where assemblymen and senators are termed out and look what you end up with running for political office?"
Have you looked at the Senate where McConnell and Graham are NOT termed out and look at the mess you end up with. Opps, that's probably why you don't want term limits.
They are, the millennials are demanding more safe places because the Zer's (generation Z) are just about to start to graduate from high school.
Separate names with a comma.