Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by VotreAltesse, Oct 28, 2019.
What kind of questions are you putting on this test?
We are using California as an example for term limits.
McConnell is old and borderline senile.
So is Feinstein and Pelosi but it's all of those drugs they consumed during the hippie days that are catching up to them.
I think he's still serving as a commissioned officer in the Air Force Reserves.
Lindsey Graham been there and done that in the Senate and is the type of Senator you want in Congress.
Sen.Graham is only 64 years of age. He's good for another term in the Senate.
Why? How does that have anything to do with fitness to be President? Makes absolutely no sense to me.
Gen Z's oldest members are in their third year of college, IMHO.
They never can get those years down for generations.
Older millennials act more like generation X than millennials.
Just as not every millennial is a snowflake and I can think of a few baby boomers who are snowflakes.
Shouldn't this be decided by voters? Wouldn't an imposition of an age rule be a government intrusion?
@Pollycy My life experience don't make me neutral. I saw some people of my family got alzheimer or strokes. The thing is, a president has for instance nuclear codes.
If a stroke is quickly detected, early alzheimer or dementia isn't always. An old individual can be fit at one year, and there could be a quick degradation.
Maybe it's not a good reference, but in my birth country, two presidents were still in power yet old, Mitterand and Chirac. Both have hidden to the rest of the nation their real health status even if it was mandatory to reveal it.
One thing has to be clear : I think that old people have to be included in political institutions. I'm against either gerontocracy (the government of the oldest) or agism, but maybe not as president.
The last point is : maybe a president is only elected by a part of the people (around 25% with abstention), but in the end he has to represent everybody, not just the people who elected him. Saying that people can judge them throught their vote is a valid argument, yet flawed.
brisk walking facilitates the increased flow of blood to the brain, which helps improve one’s thinking and mental reasoning. Furthermore, having to walk for 45 minutes a day can help reinforce your memory functions and provide numerous mental health benefits of walking.
So, those who refrain from brisk walking are more likely to be less fit mentally and less capable of dealing with the duties of the Presidency. If you aren’t fast on your feet, you won’t be fast on your seat in the Oval Office.
The above says nothing of the sort. It suggests that brisk walking is good for the brain, it doesn't suggest that not being able to briskly walk means you have brain problems.
There ARE term limits....it's called VOTING.
If people aren't happy with their representative they can VOTE them out of office.
If they are happy with their representative they have the right to vote them in again.
I think the better question is do you think the Congress and state legislatures would dare try to pass an amendment to the Constitution to make it so?
Doubtful that anybody would try something like that until the last Baby Boomer is DEAD....
There is a reason the minimum age for President is 35 - b/c before the age of 35 the following facts are true:
1. You know pretty much nothing about life and possess little experience and virtually no wisdom.
2. You think you know absolutely everything about everything - especially that everything stated in fact #1 is a bunch of uggabug.
P.S. Bonus fact #3:
3. You don't learn that fact #2 is a bunch of uggabug until the age of 50.
Probably. Though 75 might be a better cut off point. That's the usual age for compulsory retirement (in my country), and beyond which a good proportion of people think about giving up driving. If you're not fit to work or drive, you have no biz running a country.
I would also add that 35 is too young a starting point. I would want it to be 45.
I Am 79 and DEFINITELY think the maximum age for a candidate should be no older than 74 at the time of their election.It is well known that Ronald Reagan was suffering with dementia in his second term and possibly part of his first term.In these cases the person that the electorate voted for IS NOT RUNNING THE COUNTRY his cabinet are.
I would like to say that no one under 105 years of age should be allowed to run for POTUS.
Better question is should you vote for someone over 70 not should they be allowed to run. I'm all about free will
A few things to Consider,
At the Constitution’s drafting age reaching age 70 was a rare thing.
In some cultures the experience and wisdom of age is venerated.
Disqualifying a candidate from running because their age can be considered age discrimination, something many corporations practice, not necessarily for diminished capacity, but for company cosmetics, reducing the bottom line, and other generalizations of when applied only on age criteria is little different than doing so on the basis of skin color.
Just as everyone will eventually die, we all age. At what point in age are you willing to say you no longer have value?
How many politicians of any age would you opine is operating at diminished capacity now?
There are in multiple checks for protecting the Country from a President doing harm because of dementia or any other assessment of being unfit for service;
Impeachment, the observation and assessment of voters (given the length and brutality of campaigning, voters have ample time to do an assessment of fitness... isn’t that what elections in part are about?),
With any concerns mid-terms, the 25th Amendment provides a process and means to deal with that contingency.
Then again, perhaps we should rethink the final part of the selection precess; vote to reduce the field of candidates to a handful, then have them compete in a televised event in the Thunderdome with the last one living the winner. That should do some filtering for fitness.
Thank you for sharing. I am 49, but I have Depression and Autism. I can not make my own decisions on many issues -- my doctor prescribing antidepressants has several rules for me.
I do not like Kirsten Elizabeth Gillibrand because she made hateful generalizations about men and implied that they have no place in the future. Some posters may find this issue off-topic, but in fact it does have to do with her advanced age.
As I explain elsewhere, her opinions are based on very long lived experience. I respect her for senior age but I do think she is too old to be an American President.
It is already illegal for anyone not born an American Citizen to run for Presidency. It follows that any individual born before 1776 (or even 1789) can not run for Presidency. Thus age guards are already in place.
Actually, it does not say that. It says:
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
People born before 1776 are allowed to be President, provided that they were citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. In fact, our first 7 presidents were born before 1776 (as well as our 9th President, 8th was younger than the 9th).
Thank you. That was my mistake.
It means that there is no upper age limit to becoming US president.
Separate names with a comma.