There Should Be An Upper Limit On The President’s Age - 65 or 70

This post proves just about every reason as to why there should be age limits. It's a rambling mess of false equivalence and irrelevant information tossed into a word salad.

Would appear that many people support age discrimination and don't trust the electorate to determine a politician's qualifications. Yes. I would support removing the lower age limit so long as other lower age limits are lowered to the level set for the age of majority. If you can join the military at age 18 at the lowest rank, why not at the highest rank, so long as you can also have a drink and smoke and pay for your own health insurance to celebrate.

No, this is why we have elections. We decide, as a country, if they are suitable for the job.

I'm sort of with you but I'm not sure his second term wasn't propped up by Nancy. I heard a story told privately by one of his doctors that was pretty scary...could be golf course BS, who knows.

Bernie is a year older than Biden and is sharp as a tack. Biden has certainly lost a step and is showing his age. But compared to Trump, he is Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting.

A max age for President is not necessary because the 25th amendment supplies a remedy if a president loses the ability to do the job. Also, the president is term limited.

The place where age is really a problem is in congress where members like Feinstein have been in office for 25+ years and have hogged prime committee assignments, leaving the Dems very short on leadership experience outside of a small group of very old senators and reps (Pelosi 80, Hoyer 81, Clyburn 80, and so on). There should be a 4 term max on the senate and 12 term max in the house. That is plenty of time to serve and would keep people from holding on to posts to the detriment of younger members.

I know, I found it hilarious and entirely predictable. For one, his first sentence could be the Merriam-Webster’s example for “hypocrisy.” Then he shares that his age is “greater than 67,” as if we couldn’t have guessed by his tone of defensive indignation. I’d be impressed by old folks who are willing to view my proposal objectively—I plan to be one someday.

Regarding discrimination. Having a lower limit on age is discrimination in a dictionary sense. But from a legal perspective "discrimination" only applies to protected classes. Young people are not a protected class. Old people are. That's why one is an issue and the other isn't legally.

Regarding the free market and letting the people decide. It's way more complicated than that. Like others have said, the system is set up to favor the incumbent. It's way easier to win a contest with no incumbent than it is to beat an incumbent. So we just end up with a lot of familiar names. "The people" don't always make the best decisions anyway. Look at all the incompetent celebrities we've elected to office for example. None of them would be selected by a peer based merit system.

World Gone Wrong wrote:

I’m not one of these “Dementia Joe” idiots; I believe he’s of much sounder mind than the orange lunatic. That said, I think he’s experienced a normal degree of age related cognitive decline.

Why should we be electing these old codgers as “Leader of the free world?” Studies have shown that people reach their cognitive peaks in the 40s at the latest, and much more often between 18 and 35. We’ve always had the age 35+ stipulation for U.S. Presidents, but why not an upper limit? Because it will offend the elderly? Boo-freaking-hoo!

Somebody had better start drafting some legislation. I nominate Greg (okay that’s a joke, but otherwise I’m quite serious).

You saw the job Joe is has done to win the presidency and is doing to manage this transition. It showed great judgement and wisdom.

Now tell me which Democratic candidate do you think would have done a better job than Joe?

None. With the age limit there would have been no Joe.

hank jr wrote:

No, this is why we have elections. We decide, as a country, if they are suitable for the job.

WE do?

Are you sure it's not uber wealthy donors who decide?

I love Berndog Sandman, but I honestly think he has lost some of his edge and comes off as very senescent at times.

The 25th Amendment is obviously not a functioning fail safe or it would have been enacted in Reagan’s 2nd term and at the end of Trump’s stint (if not earlier). Perhaps laws must be implemented to protect the people from politicians’ self-serving nature (i.e. Pence’s unwillingness to take action so as not to upset the Trumpies, some of whom literally wanted to hang him).

This should have been a joke but I don’t think it was. Just because the world hasn’t been completely destroyed yet does not make that an acceptable state of affairs.

Don't blame me. I voted for that smokeshow Tulsi.

Probably we want a president around age 70.

We don't want 'em to expire while in office, but it's not good to have super vigorous ex-presidents hanging around too long. Obama kept his personally loyal organization after office. Trump will, too, but, in all likelihood, nature will take its course sooner.

Now tell me which Democratic candidate do you think would have done a better job than Joe?

Tulsi, who I believe could have been a truly unifying POTUS.

The reason I said to go back to the primaries is because they are never going to amend the Constitution to put in some decided on age limit.

If they put that in initially, Reagan would have never been president.

The major political parties can make their own rules, though.

They could make a rule that in order to get the nomination they can't be over 75 or so and they must release their tax returns.

Even then, I don't think they would implement that.

So, you start with how you vote in the primaries.

"The constitution has ALWAYS served to protect Americans from themselves. Do you not understand this?"

Yes, I do. Very much. Americans gave us Trump.

The Constitution was written in a way that electors decide the president. And they do not have to follow what the voters wanted. Each state has since decided they want the electors to represent what the voters asked for. If that change wasn't made, they could have simply given the 2016 election to Hillary.

Objectivity is missing from your posts. Talk about "word salad..."

I’m not so much concerned about dementia in our president so much as I am having someone who is out of touch to the issues of younger generations and our rapidly changing needs in society. That, and the fact that old white men always seem to hold majority power

I pretty much agree with this. In NC, the mandatory retirement age for judges is 72. While I'm sure there are some smart old farts out there, it's my opinion that most of us have no business working, much less starting an incredibly difficult job past the age of 70. I don't want to practice law when I'm 70, I sure don't want to be POTUS at that age. I could not imagine doing it at 80.

Nobody wants to watch the POTUS lose a step. In your late 70's and 80's you lose lots of steps.

I think that applies across the board - Trump and Clinton were really pushing it in 2016 at 70. I think Trump and Biden were both too old in 2020.

I would support a starting age cap of 65 and allow that person to complete 2 terms and be done at 73.

Experience grows consistently. There is a lot to be known about how things work and what has not worked in the past that tends to grow as we age, and in many ways I see myself as still in the position of learning a great deal even though I am now older than a number of presidents when they were elected. We would be harming ourselves with an artificial age limit. The real age limit we have is what the American people are comfortable with electing. Biden's knowledge shows. He's done with all the drama and is getting stuff done. Trump, on the other hand, learned nothing in his life other than that his money and lawyers could allow him to do whatever he wanted. We get a lot from Biden's experience in the Senate and with Obama. We also would gain a lot from candidates in their 40s or 50s, but that again is contingent on the person. Some learn, some don't, and some have a much better idea of what should be done than others.

ML wrote:

Objectivity is missing from your posts. Talk about "word salad..."

This doesn’t even qualify as an argument. Google “peak cognitive age” and try to consider the results objectively.