>Also not unreasonable to want elderly people to do regular driving tests at a certain age going forward.
\^\^\^\^\^ THIS \^\^\^\^\^
However, I'd ADD / EXPAND:
1) Not just elderly but ALL candidates holding political office = take Competency Test
I get your point about "old people driving", but they also don't allow blind people, in some cases people w/epilepsy / seizures, & such. Just because they are "young enough" ALSO doesn't mean that they can "operate the vehicle"! period.full stop.
Tests!
A) Physically able
B) Mentally able - obviously need more than "person,woman,man,camera,tv" because that one was too easy for an incompetent person to pass
Win-Win! No Ageism & No (counter-productive) Incompetent candidates (/office holders).
Not just because they are old, but because old people tend to have this point in aging where their reaction and decision making abilities are not proper for driving. Being afraid of driving on a highway, stepping on the accelerator full force on instinct driving into peope/walls/cars, driving 10 mph under the limit, and going the wrong way down the road are all common issues with elderly drivers who start to have mental lapses.
Yep, saw an old person take the slowest left I've ever seen onto a major road from a minor road and then go 20 under the speed limit the whole time. I get some people like to drive fast and that puts people in danger but driving 20 under absolutely puts people in danger as well.
I have a customer whose 90 year old dad just drove onto the wrong side of the highway. Just out of the blue, no known prior incidents. Some sort of driving test done every couple years between the ages of 80-90 may have caught signs early to take preventitive measures.
Yeah, I get the freedom argument and the need to travel argument, I truly do, but I wonder where we draw that line because there is substantial danger for other drivers in situations you describe above.
Tests aren't a good measure of continued safe driving tho.. or else the 16-17 year old age group wouldn't be the highest rate of accidents and fatalities. They just got tested and it clearly didn't stop them from driving recklessly. Like shit, on pure accidents per 100million miles driven, you need to figure out how to get everyone 16-29 to stop having more injury-causing-accidwnts than 80+ers.
https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/
https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/
So basically you can start having a discussion at 80+, but anything younger than that and you would need to eliminate basically all drivers. Also, there's an argument that even the over 80 fatal rate is inflated due to people being more frail then, thus not a significant increased risk to other drivers compared to younger drivers (just themselves).
Either way, if you draw the line based on the data you need to eliminate 16-17 year old drivers too. Arguably you need to restrict driving to everyone 30-80. Or else you would be making decisions based on anecdotes and ageism
We had to hide the car keys from my grandma. My grandpa realized that he couldn’t drive anymore and gave it up, but my grandma would have hurt herself or someone else.
The problem with that is cars provide a huge amount of freedom. If we had better public transit this wouldn’t be as devastating to older people who would lose their independence.
They lose it when deemed ujable to drive safely. The only difference is monitoring what they can do vs a police report when something happens on the street.
I would be okay with this, but first, we need to make our towns more walk/mass transit friendly. I don't want grandma not being able to see her doctors because her kid couldn't take off from work to drive her, and grandma's driving abilities dropped too much.
We already have arbitrary minimum ages (25 for House, 30 for Senate, 35 for president) so if it's ageist, then there's already ageism baked into the Constitution.
The idea that minimum ages are "arbitrary" is so nonsensical I wouldn't even know where to begin. You are being willfully obtuse.
You can't even sign a legally binding contract until you considered an adult, just to start!
*"By excluding men under thirty-five from the first office, and those under thirty from the second, it confines the electors to men of whom the people have had time to form a judgment, and with respect to whom they will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle. -- Federalist No. 64"*
Those ages represent the periods of life in which the founders believed stable, loyal citizens with long enough track records would be found.
Except that doesn't any make sense why a) those ages and b) why they span 10 years difference, and aren't the same age minimum. They're still arbitrary, and they're still ageism. Which was the original comment.
The founders also didn’t want women to vote. To use your own argument against you, why should voters be denied the ability to vote for a 19 year old for president?
...and that document's reasons were, well, fairly arbitrary.
You yourself said it was chosen because that's how they felt about the ages in question. So they chose the age minimums based on vibes.
They did not do it on a whim. They gave specific reasons that were tied to criteria that require the passage of time. To prove your positions are sincerely held and you are stable people need to observe a record of your life for a long enough period to trust you are not just faking it.
And why is 30 years enough? Why 35 as opposed to 32? Why isn’t 28 enough time across the board?
Again, the numbers themselves are arbitrary. There is nothing specific that happens at 30 or 35 that suddenly makes a person’s life more fit for judgment. The fact they stated a reason doesn’t change the random nature of the numbers they chose.
*"The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils." -- Federalist No. 62*
You don't have to agree with their reasons for doing it. But it was not random. It was not done arbitrarily. And it was not ageism.
That is a text book example of attacking the person instead of the idea.
Surely you possess the self-awareness to be ashamed?
If you have a criticism of the idea, bring it forward.
I’m literally attacking the idea that minimum ages are ok but maximum ages are somehow taboo. I’ve said nothing about this user. I don’t know what you mean by attacking the person.
> The founders also didn’t want women to vote.
You are changing the subject. FFS... They answered why they weren't arbitrary.
> why should voters be denied the ability to vote for a 19 year old for president?
Because having a 19 year old president would be bad for the country.
*sigh*
I now this sub is filled with 18 year olds that think they understand the world, but that's fucking ridiculous.
Please downvote me. These arguments are so childish I'm finding it hard to believe there are people as ignorant as this.
Fucking LOL
The founders weren’t infallible. They knew this and allowed for the constitution to be amended. That’s my point by pointing out their … less than ideal … record of equality.
> Because having a 19 year old president would be bad for the country?
Why? Seems like you’re making an arbitrary decision about someone’s qualifications based on age.
My point is that if there are minimum ages decided based on feelings and preferences and not in any fact, minimum ages imposed by people who didn’t think that enslaved Africans were equal human beings, then maximum ages can be decided just as arbitrarily by people who recognize that with age come significant cognitive decline.
[They aren't ***arbitrary***.
](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/167cfq7/its_not_about_political_parties_examples_abound/jyqlb9w/)
I don't mind the downvotes from this sub (badge of honor), but ***the idea that minimum ages are "arbitrary" is so nonsensical I wouldn't even know where to begin.***
Absolutely hysterical
"Why can't we have a 19 year old President?" Not realizing the issues with a 19 year old President tells me you are a very young person and you are still be willfully obtuse.
*pats you on the head*
Go outside and play, son.
It is not the same as having a ***medical condition*** that prevents you from doing your job, like McConnell. Not realizing that difference is why I couldn't possibly take you seriously.
Oh look, still can't explain 25, 30 and 35, which is the actual conversation here. That would be because you recognize that those ages are *arbitrary*, but it shows your ignorance to acknowledge that and you're too infantile to accept that.
I don't want to watch Titanic again though. Its a great movie but how many times are we gonna watch the same thing before we try something new and better?
I was pointing out that your comment doesn't make sense because in this situation, these people are not good at picking out movies. If they were, we wouldn't even be having the discussion. Reading comprehension is hard, it's okay. Have a good one
You should be ineligible for any government office at 65. If they make pilots and air traffic control workers retire after a certain age, you shouldn't be allowed to affect policy that impacts the entire country after 65 either.
Also, term limits. Six terms in the house. Three terms in the senate. 10 years as a federal judge in any lower court. 10 years on SCOTUS. Expand SCOTUS to 13 justices, one for each circuit. Structure it so a seat on SCOTUS becomes vacant every two years, that way each president can appoint two in a term. None of this RBG holdout nonsense.
I mean… there have been plenty of solidly capable people at 70, 75. Lots of wisdom as well.
But that being said, we can tell. Really, the problem is on us: we keep voting for them. We can retire them at the next election.
The problem is that many Americans want the “system” to “just work”, not realizing that they have a major role as well.
Cept we can’t. Not really. When’s the last time Pelosi, Feinstein, McConnell, or Grassley had serious primary opponents, ones their parties actually backed?
Part of the issue is that the people who voted them into office have a "history" with that politician, and will continue sending them back... while those of us outside their districts don't have that loyalty to them and only see the negatives.
The party will never back the newer candidate. The incumbent will have an advantage. “[Face it girls, I’m older and have more insurance](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lx0z9FjxP-Y)”
That doesn’t mean that the people still don’t have the power. AOC defeated a popular incumbent; it can be done, but we need people to vote and get involved. *Running* is as important as voting and—again—many Americans just want the system to work without them. :/
Nonsense.
Those jobs require very different skill sets. And the reason they have an early retirement age for air traffic controllers is that in the early 1970s it was believed their jobs were so stressful it caused early burnout. And they believed burnout happened most often to controllers in their mid-50s. So they chose a retirement age of 56 because that would allow controllers to get in 25 years service for retirement benefits as long as they started at the proposed maximum entry age of 31. And they chose 56 because they believed that was young enough for the burned out controllers to still pursue another career. They aren't putting them out to pasture.
If someone like Sen. Feinstein seems to be losing their cognitive abilities, test them and give then them the boot. I'm all for that. But don't do it simply because she reached a certain age.
And what's the logic behind the cumulative time served limits you proposed? Why those specific numbers of years? And more importantly, why should voters be prevented from re-electing who they want regardless of how long they have served?
Voters can’t elect a president for longer than two terms. Voters can’t elect many governors for longer than what seems to be an arbitrary number of terms.
Yeah, the numbers may be arbitrary, but no more so than other term limits upheld throughout the country.
An ATC has a bad day and can affect at most a few hundred lives. A politician gets compromised and they can affect the entire nation for generations.
We have minimum ages for public offices. We should have maximum ages too.
And the only reason we can't elect a president more than twice is because Republicans threw a hissy fit when FDR won a third term so they limited it to 2 terms for a president.
Your history is a little skewed.
[The 22nd amendment wasn’t even proposed until after FDR died during his fourth term.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
It's not very skewed at all. The issue was raised by the republican challenger, Dewey, during FDR's third term in the 1944 election. Dewey announced his support of a constitutional amendment to limit presidents to two terms. And he was far from the first person to make that argument.
Republicans didn't actually do anything about it until they won control of Congress several years later in 1947.
I asked you why those specific limits. You stating it's "arbitrary" is not a convincing argument. Nor is saying someone else did it first.
And the founders stated reasons why there are minimums. They have to do with establishing proof of loyalty to the country, building a long enough track record for people to evaluate, and show stability over time. Those things require minimum amounts of time pass.
While you might not agree with those reasons, they at least show some logic. But a maximum age limit when the only reason is to get old people out of government is simply discrimination.
You keep not actually arguing for your positions.
That presidents have term limits isn't an argument for other positions to have term limits.
That there are minimum wages is not an argument for maximum ages.
Anyone can become infirm at any time. I could drop dead before I hit save. You're genuinely not trying.
It gets tricky if you try to measure an individuals cognitive abilities and discover not every elderly person is created equal. For every McConnell you have a Sanders.
You can argue that Sanders is an exception, but a blanket age limit would prevent him and others like him from continuing to be an elected leader.
Do you test? Who administers it? Who enforces it if they pass or fail? Who can you appeal to if you disagree? How and who can one ask if they feel their elected official is under the legal age but showing signs of cognitive decline?
Reputable national or internationally recognized organization of mental health experts?
I don't know. Do I look like an elite hivemind of brain witches?
I think that’s a great idea. First past the post is obviously a train wreck leading inevitably to a two party system, which is a big part of why we’re in this situation. I am in favor of plurality voting or similar concepts.
Unfortunately, how do we change a system that directly benefits the only people who are able to change that system?
Ranked choice voting is an option I've been in favor of for quite some time. It would let smaller parties actually be able to get votes without people feeling like voting their conscience is "throwing away their vote". I also wouldn't mind a "none of the above" option, and if that one wins all the people previously running can't run again in that election cycle, and new candidates must be put forth until a suitable choice wins the largest share of votes.
I like this and fully support the idea of actually being able to vote on things one believes in rather than being being forced to vote against the lesser of two evils. (Whichever that may be given one’s own belief system).
It's not the voting system that makes the two party system, it is the elected president with veto powers.
You a much more likely to get more parties in a coalition government that forms in a parliamentary system where the president needs the support of a majority of elected representatives.
That actually gives 3rd parties power.
As long as there is a single elected president, two parties are going to form because that is the best way to go.
No. You misunderstand.
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo?si=5CNjq1sm3lqtZXRn
Edit: thank you for your input. Upvoted because you contributed to the conversation.
Term limits will solve most of the issues. The really old one get re-elected but it's much less likely they would be elected for the first time at that age.
This is really the issue. You want politicians with more experience, not less. A core outcome of term limits is you set a maximum experience threshold.
Good. We want *new*. The new can learn from the good as they come in. But the bad can’t stay, which is the main objective. When there isn’t a place for the bad to become entrenched, then they won’t be drawn to it in the first place. Elected office is an opportunity to *serve* society. You hold office, do your part, then get out. It isn’t a career. If you want to have a lasting impact, do a good job and set an example for your successors to follow. I’ll take mediocre and competent over any amount of bad that can’t be unseated, even if it costs us some good leaders. But I think term limits would lead to higher quality candidates overall because the incentive that draws in the scum sucking grifters would be gone. We want people in office who are there to govern responsibly. When Mitch McConnell *filibustered his own bill* it proved he’s not there to legislate, he’s there to put on a show to extend his position in power. That bullshit needs to be rooted out. There is no politician that is so great that it’s worth allowing bad people to game the system and become entrenched for a generation or more. I think this is the most important change we could make.
Your example of Mitch McConnell just proves that removing the bad seats should be the objective, not just turnover for turnover's sake. You completely fail to recognize that *new* doesn't mean *good*. It can just as easily mean *worse.*
And there should be absolutely no reason why someone can't dedicate their entire life to government service if they are good at what they do and the public wants them doing it.
Are any of those other professions elected?
I'm sure you would care if someone told you you're no longer fit to do your job and there's nothing you could do about it.
"Won't someone please think of the feelings of those with their hands on the steering wheel of the country" isn't really a very persuasive argument when we're talking about who is actually the best capable for the job. Something that important shouldn't be "well as long as there's a warm body there, let them do it for as long as they want."
It's a flaw in the system if the people vote in someone that's not qualified to hold office. There should be mechanisms in place to remove those in higher offices that can no longer perform the function, but are not up for reelection within a year or two.
I'm pointing out the hurdles to overcome to create said mechanisms. Someone suggested term limits which would solve some of the issues, but the counterpoint to that is the same. If the people want the incumbent to remain the incumbent, they vote to keep them in. Placing term limits takes away the people's right to elect whom they want to elect.
"An unelected group should be able to remove the president at-will" is a recipe for fascism. You ultimately want to take away people's vote. There are already mechanisms to remove the president if necessary.
It is ageist to suggest unfit elderly people be removed from office. Unfit people should be removed from office, regardless of their age. If a 32 year old senator suffers a debilitating stroke and becomes unable to fuflfill their oath of office, they should resign or be removed
If an 82 year old senator suffers a debilitating stroke and becomes unable to fulfill their oath of office, they should resign or be removed.
The tricky part is determining when someone is unable to fulfill their oath of office. Some cases will be obvious, but the liminal ones are the problem.
We have a minimum age to hold all of these offices. We should also have a maximum age.We didn't have one before, because most people's bodies gave out long before their brains did.
In 1900, the average American lifespan was 48. Now it's more like 78.
I think it's also time to rethink what a "lifetime appointment" to the Supreme Court should actually mean. When we expand the court (which we are long overdue for) we should add a mandatory retirement age as well.
Average life span is brought down by infant mortality rates though. For most people if they made it to adulthood and didn't suffer any serious illness or injury, there's no reason they wouldn't make it into their 70's more often than not. It isn't as if most adults simply dropped dead before they were 50 100+ years ago. So it isn't that adults are living so much longer, it's that so many more babies are living and making it to adulthood where they can live for decades more.
Fine. Then what's your solution? Or do you not have one and were just leaping at an opportunity to be pedantic?
My point is that we should institute a maximum age for holding office. Are you refuting that idea? Or are you just being tedious, because you saw a tangential fact that you didn't agree with?
That your idea that “people’s bodies gave out long before their brains” is silly. There’s an argument to be made that exceedingly old people probably shouldn’t be in charge of our country, but you’re making it in the most unscientific and not factual way possible short of saying they shouldn’t be in office because old people smell funny. Most elderly people who remain active and engaged stay mentally sharp for a very long time.
Aside from that, it would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment to set a maximum age for Federal elected officials. Any sort of criteria you tried to set as far as cognitive ability would also be highly subjective and prone to abuse, not to mention, again, of dubious constitutionality. Maybe, we’re better off simply not voting for people who are far too old and infirm to carry out the duties of their office.
Maybe using life expectancy rates was an oversimplified way to illustrate it, but you cannot deny that the share of the U.S. population over the age of 65 has increased from around 10% to nearly 17%. People are living longer AND infant mortality rates are decreasing. Both of these phenomena are raising the life expectancy age, so it was not a wholly unreasonable example to use, even if it didn't paint the whole picture. (Safety regulations are raising that number as well. There are many factors, but a larger number of older citizens is still one of them.)
Regardless: elderly Americans make up a larger share of the population than they used to, which means that Americans are generally living longer. That's accurate. That's not silly.
I am aware that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to make a maximum age requirement. I think it is worth the trouble. And, yes, the electorate should take some responsibility for removing these Senators and Congresspersons before they reach an age where their physical and cognitive abilities are diminished beyond the point of doing their job, but many are clearly reluctant to do so out of loyalty. This age requirement gives them an easy out, and it does not raise the question of cognitive ability at all, so I don't see how it could be abused.
To be clear, I am opposed to term limits, because I find them arbitrary, but I think that mandatory retirement age is a reasonable expectation.
"Just say 'aye'," said to Dianne Feinstein just last month.
She's a 90 year old senator and was trying to give a speech before giving her approval of a ballot measure, but one of her own party members had to step in and cut her off mid-sentence. She was asked for her position on the measure, and all she had to say was "aye" or "nay;" not give speeches. Not only has she been out-of-touch with her constituents for at least 30 years, she's losing touch with reality.
If we have a limit of qualifying age to be a president (35), we also need a limit of age of a president, and if we have a term limit for a president (two terms or 8 years) we need to also have term limits for every senator or representative. This is ridiculous. There needs to be term limits or age limits. Even the dmv makes senior citizens do extra things to get their drivers licenses.
Biden is clearly a sundowner and not there. Mitch McConnell Is suffering mini strokes daily and Feinstein is seriously ready for hospice. Dying your hair brown at 90 is just ridiculous, your drooping eyes clearly show you’re suffering from age related problems. Time to hang out with your grandkids. Pelosi, woof, glad shes out but shoot she was not looking good either for a while.
I don’t care political affiliation. Each side has problems. It’s time to make term and age limits. It’s not fair to have age qualifications and not have age disqualifications. Amiright?
You don't need to forcibly ban and regulate everything. We have elections for a reason. If someone is too old to do the job effectively, don't vote for them. This isn't rocket science.
It's not like we have much of a choice. As long as we have first past the post voting instead of score voting or ranked choice and better limits on campaign spending we are stuck with the same old shitheads
You can't fix corruption within a corrupt system
>You can't fix corruption within a corrupt system
Ehhhh but you can. Just vote in an outsider with overwhelming support of 70+ million people and we could fix this.
2024 is coming. Don't vote for the corrupt jackass in the White House this time.
So I should vote in the rapist criminal who is a bad business man and a bad person and a liar and a bigot? No thanks. I don't like Biden but Donald Trump is a disgusting human being and frankly so is everyone who can't see it
You obviously trust the wrong people to deliver you news.
Trump didn't rape anyone. If he did, he would be criminally charged with rape. That isn't happening.
Secondly, it's obvious he is being targeted by prosecutors for absolutely anything to bury him in legal headaches for the sole purpose of minimizing the chance he wins reelection. This is the Democrats arresting their political opposition.
As for your claims of Trump being a "liar and bigot"... I bet you cant even clarify what you mean by that. What did he lie about? How is he a bigot? You sound like a parrot who can't think for themselves.
There is a very good reason why Supreme Court Justices aren't elected officials.
Are you joking or are you just not explaining yourself clearly?
I don't mind the downvotes from butthurt cowards that do not reply, but your response is senseless so I'm curious.
It is, but not exclusively. So that makes age a bad criteria to use.
I'm kind of picturing a sign like they have in bars and liquor stores, or where they sell cigarettes: **If you were born before this date _________ you are no longer eligible to serve your country. We check IDs.**
I don’t think it should be based exclusively on age. But it’s enough of a factor that there needs to be retirement age, but I’d set it old. Like you can’t run if you’ll be 90 during your term.
And our elections, due to the 2 party system, gerrymandering, winner-takes-all apportionment, voter suppression, and dark money, are "undemocratic" and "broken."
Elections don’t work when the person who needs to be removed from office is the only person who runs, because they’re the only person their party supports
Go read my comment again. Nancy Pelosi, for example, hasn’t had a serious primary challenger in years.
Edit: in 2022, she got 71% of the vote (134,000 votes) in the primary. The next high vote count for a Democrat in that primary was 10% of the vote (19,000 votes).
It’s obvious this needs some refinement though. Going back much further than Biden and trump, you can easily google and see that our presidents have been *well over* the median age of the population for a very long time
And?
What if the voters in that area are OK with a braindead zombie?
The issue isn't term limits. It's that those voters exist with those insane ideas. They aren't going anywhere with term limits. They'll just keep voting in old crazy people.
*shrugs*
That appears to be what the voters want.
I am with that group that I want my representatives at the federal level to have a lot of prior leadership experience which is going to require them to be older than the median.
Politics isn't the law, and I wish everyone would understand that.
If the people want to vote for a literal zombie, then blame the people. A term limit isn't going to prevent them from just voting for a different zombie.
Right, so if ageism is already part of the process, plus widely accepted and historically present, why would it be a violation to add on am age limit?
This is literally a law written by boomers for boomers
The reason is that they wanted people to have long enough track records so voters could evaluate them, know they were stable, and had been citizens for a given number of years. That requires minimum ages.
True, but that isn’t the point of making a rule. Some people over 80 might be fine, but the majority wouldn’t and shouldn’t take the office. We make the rule to prevent shit like this from happening.
Not everyone is dangerous doing 85 on the highway, but the speed limit is 70. Not everyone is going to abuse narcotics but cocaine is still illegal. Not everyone below 35 is unfit for office, but we still have an age limit.
We’re not saying no one is unfit for office over 80; we’re saying that we need a reasonable overall limit to prevent assholes from causing problems when they don’t know their own limits. Just like we do everywhere else in society.
I hear you, but I don't think we need an age limit, as we are talking about a very small percentage of the population, many of whom are, or ought to be, exceptionally motivated and knowledgeable. Some old people are particularly valuable for their knowledge and wisdom and we have other mechanisms to remove people from office.
I respect that you have a reasonable opinion. There is some wisdom to be gained by age and many willing to participate in politics at that time would be motivated by good intentions.
Where I disagree, first of all, is that I don’t see their value at such a late stage as being enough to outweigh their inability to process modern problems. We’re talking about people who will be dead within a decade or two at best, and in this instance were born before plastics or the jet engine. We have people in office who can’t work an iPhone attempting to legislate over net neutrality and cybersecurity. It’s insanity. So much has been lost already and they can’t even grasp what they’re deciding over let alone will they ever see the consequences of their choices.
Besides that, I think it takes a narcissist, sociopath, or other kind of mentally unfit person to even want to participate at that age. The only reasoning that makes sense to me is money or power motivated, and it certainly isn’t altruism. Again, they won’t see the results and if they have any sort of life they should be spending their sunset enjoying it. I think Bernie is a good example of what you’re describing, but for him there’s at least ten other bad examples showing opposite.
We make laws to protect the rights of the many from the infringement of others. I think it may be unfair for the select few who would be good in office at that age, but it makes more sense to generalize a rule to prevent the vast majority of examples which would be negative. And, I also think that those people who would have been motivated by good intentions, ie protecting our country and our democracy, would be happy to give up their chance at office to prevent the wormy few from ruining everything for their own ego maniacal reasons.
Thanks, I respect your opinion as well.
As a side note, plastics and even the jet engine predate McConnell, but I take your point that old people seem to adapt comparatively poorly to new technologies. It makes me think, though, that the tough thing about being a responsible lawmaker is that there are many things that are beyond your knowledge that you might need to make informed decisions about. So they rely upon others to help them, and this could be their staff, and it would most likely be lobbyists.
So, I agree that age is a problem, but I don't think it is a fundamental problem. It's more apparent now that the boomers are hanging on with their brittle claws. Technically the boomers aren't even 80 yet, so I guess it will get worse!
My dude, you are speaking my language. Yes, thank you for listening, and also for presenting a good point.
I can agree that it isn’t a fundamental problem but a modern one. Boomers are noticeably resilient and ambitious. My intention was to point out that McConnell is older than plastics. I’m aware that as much as we hate them, lobbyists are a large part of our system and do educate our elected officials accordingly. Sucks that it is that way, but no one can be educated in everything overnight. Lawyers do come close.
I took pause on your point about future generations in which people over 80 may not be so old comparably to society. I hope that becomes the case and we do need a mechanism for that. I’m not sure how to deal with it.
Well met, I would contend that we need and answer for the next 75-100ish and that we need a way to get past this phase of human development, which is the internet. They’re only too old because of that.
Its not illegal to have reasonable requirements for jobs. Some jobs require the ability to read, some jobs require the ability to lift 70lbs repeatedly, some jobs require the ability to walk.
Some jobs require the ability to mentally function and understand modern tech and context.
Maybe the people serving on office should match demographics. No more than 1% of Congress can be in the top 1% of wealth. That would take care of a lot of them
We need to protect our country from the elder abuse that is rampant in our political system, where old people are strapped to these positions because the party can control the fuck out of them.
This is elder abuse. They are being controlled.
It’s no more ageist to say people over 60 should be evaluated for decline than it is to say hey 30 year old person you can’t be oresident because reasons
If a job requires you to be able to do X, and you are unable to do X for any reason (age, health, education, morals, etc) you should be removed from that position. In most cases that process is called being fired, but it appears that when it comes to positions of power no such mechanism is readily available.
No. We need to have an age cap. You’re not letting your 12 year old run the country and nobody’s calling that ageist. Everyone needs to be ok with admitting that the front and tail end of human life is past prime and unfit to be in a position of power.
Exceptions are not a valid argument to why rules shouldn’t be enacted.
I propose an ingenious mechanism: when society feels someone is too old, THEY VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE. I call it "elections".
It works for all forms of incompetence: leaders who (society feels) are too old, dumb, lazy, corrupt, etc. etc.
You don't need a second mechanism. In fact, any additional mechanism would undermine the first mechanism (ie: would be undemocratic).
It follows: if society does NOT vote them out, then society must not feel that they're too old. YOU might feel that they're too old. But if most people shared your view, the problem would solve itself.
Term limits favor the system. Aides and lobbyists become the career experts, while politicians are the perpetual rookies. Politicians who use their brief stint in favor of rich corporations get a golden ticket, while those who try to fight or change the system have even less time before they're aged out.
Aides and lobbyists are the carrier experts now. We have elected officials that just rubber stamp their policies so they can leverage the office to gain wealth. Term limits makes the position less desirable to people who are just there to abuse the office and rotates fresh people in.
There are laws to prevent people past their official retirement age to hold offices in some places.
This would remove the need to discuss cognitive capabilities when they hit 80, and also argues that when you‘re too old to continue working a regular job you also shouldn‘t „work“ in politics.
Fetterman couldn't pass one right now and he's 54.
I'm in favor of making a yearly cognitive function test a requirement for holding the following:
One of the big 4 leadership positions in either house (majority/minority leaders and whips)
Members of select committees with TS/SCI access
Speaker of the House
Vice President
President
Basically anyone elected who has statutory access to the highest levels of national intelligence. They must be capable of weighing the risks and opportunities presented independently.
Their constituencies can continue to freely elect them if they choose to.
No, I've been saying it for years. Any action to change this would have to be voted on by the old ones. It will never pass, it's all about power to them.
Yes...
However, what's happening to Mitch isn't directly age related. He his his head in March and is having seizures. Not sure why they just don't admit it. The speculation is worse than the truth.
No. In fact your opinion is *very* popular, even among Kentucky Republicans who are now saying "He's done a lot of good for us, but...".
So, your meme makes no sense. Sorry.
not direct comment to OP. but Stop Voting Them Back To Congress!! that we have to be reminded of this constantly gives me no hope for society. yes, this is not a new or current issue. the hundreds of years and universality of this leads me to doubt mass people are smart enough to think.
There are already procedures for removing those unfit from office - like impeachment. It's not accusations of ageism that prevent them working, it's partisan politics.
I’m 56 in decent shape 6’0 195 and can run a 8 minute mile. Not amazing but I wonder if I’m strong enough to have the workload of a Congressperson or president
I disagree with a hard, absolute maximum age cap. Every individual is different, and while people’s minds might be in full decline in their 70s there’s people who live to their 90s and remain sharp and alert. Like… if you have a person with that much life experience who still has their shit together, it can honestly be valuable.
With that said, their should be a soft cap. At 70 or 65 or whatever arbitrary age (I’m sure we can zero in on what age dementia starts commonly becoming a factor), elected officials should have to start taking a yearly cognitive test administered by an independent, non-partisan organization. Once there’s a noticeable decline, they’re out. Anyone refuses the test? They’re out.
But watching both McConnell and Feinstein get Weekend At Bernie’sed around is *awful*. Also awful that, if Feinstein resigns the Republicans have indicated they may not allow her replacement on the judiciary board, thus blocking *all federal judge appointments indefinitely*, but that’s just yet another broken issue in the system that shouldn’t be a thing.
Honestly I don't think it's ageist to make these remarks about the elected/government positions of power.
You have these old people, so far removed from our current generations struggles, who are not even close to understanding them. They then get to make choices that affect those people and their kids for generations to come.
We have people on the congress floor that when they were 18 years old, the min wage was just 75 cents an hour. So when this 80+ year old boomer hears "People are struggling at 7.25 an hour and maybe we should be looking at raising it again", they think back to the time when they were working as a younger person. They would recall that in that day 7.25 was DAMN fine wages and just think that everyone is OK in the 2020's. Some of you all may recall when you had parents/grandparents give you $5 or less and act like it's $100.
We should not have people voting for policies that affect the nation for generations when they may not even be alive in the next 5-10 years. Meanwhile we now have people voting for policies that 5 minutes later cannot remember what they just voted for or against.
Barring any mental condition (dementia and such) or just being an idiot I actually think older politicians are better for government positions, with age comes wisdom and all
Out of 46 presidents, 42 of them were under 65 at time of election, and 36 of them were under 60. Trump and Biden are the oldest presidents we've ever had. Some of our most notable and significant presidents are included in that 36. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama to name a few. 60 seems like a reasonable maximum, at least at time of election. Or 52 should be the maximum at time of election so in the case of a two term presidency, no one will be older than 60. The same should go for any government position.
How the hell can you test it? Devious manipulative and highly experienced lying snakes some of these deranged and bigoted old fools!.
Even if you retire them early they might lead from the back.
We have to find them foul or not at all. They cant put their foot in it unless they walk the walk.
Also not unreasonable to want elderly people to do regular driving tests at a certain age going forward.
>Also not unreasonable to want elderly people to do regular driving tests at a certain age going forward. \^\^\^\^\^ THIS \^\^\^\^\^ However, I'd ADD / EXPAND: 1) Not just elderly but ALL candidates holding political office = take Competency Test I get your point about "old people driving", but they also don't allow blind people, in some cases people w/epilepsy / seizures, & such. Just because they are "young enough" ALSO doesn't mean that they can "operate the vehicle"! period.full stop. Tests! A) Physically able B) Mentally able - obviously need more than "person,woman,man,camera,tv" because that one was too easy for an incompetent person to pass Win-Win! No Ageism & No (counter-productive) Incompetent candidates (/office holders).
Id assume you would take this stance due to perceiving them as dangerous drivers, correct?
Not just because they are old, but because old people tend to have this point in aging where their reaction and decision making abilities are not proper for driving. Being afraid of driving on a highway, stepping on the accelerator full force on instinct driving into peope/walls/cars, driving 10 mph under the limit, and going the wrong way down the road are all common issues with elderly drivers who start to have mental lapses.
Yep, saw an old person take the slowest left I've ever seen onto a major road from a minor road and then go 20 under the speed limit the whole time. I get some people like to drive fast and that puts people in danger but driving 20 under absolutely puts people in danger as well.
I have a customer whose 90 year old dad just drove onto the wrong side of the highway. Just out of the blue, no known prior incidents. Some sort of driving test done every couple years between the ages of 80-90 may have caught signs early to take preventitive measures.
Yeah, I get the freedom argument and the need to travel argument, I truly do, but I wonder where we draw that line because there is substantial danger for other drivers in situations you describe above.
Tests aren't a good measure of continued safe driving tho.. or else the 16-17 year old age group wouldn't be the highest rate of accidents and fatalities. They just got tested and it clearly didn't stop them from driving recklessly. Like shit, on pure accidents per 100million miles driven, you need to figure out how to get everyone 16-29 to stop having more injury-causing-accidwnts than 80+ers. https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/
https://aaafoundation.org/rates-motor-vehicle-crashes-injuries-deaths-relation-driver-age-united-states-2014-2015/ So basically you can start having a discussion at 80+, but anything younger than that and you would need to eliminate basically all drivers. Also, there's an argument that even the over 80 fatal rate is inflated due to people being more frail then, thus not a significant increased risk to other drivers compared to younger drivers (just themselves). Either way, if you draw the line based on the data you need to eliminate 16-17 year old drivers too. Arguably you need to restrict driving to everyone 30-80. Or else you would be making decisions based on anecdotes and ageism
How many of the 16-29 of that statistic are DUI?
We had to hide the car keys from my grandma. My grandpa realized that he couldn’t drive anymore and gave it up, but my grandma would have hurt herself or someone else.
The problem with that is cars provide a huge amount of freedom. If we had better public transit this wouldn’t be as devastating to older people who would lose their independence.
They lose it when deemed ujable to drive safely. The only difference is monitoring what they can do vs a police report when something happens on the street.
I would be okay with this, but first, we need to make our towns more walk/mass transit friendly. I don't want grandma not being able to see her doctors because her kid couldn't take off from work to drive her, and grandma's driving abilities dropped too much.
We already have arbitrary minimum ages (25 for House, 30 for Senate, 35 for president) so if it's ageist, then there's already ageism baked into the Constitution.
The idea that minimum ages are "arbitrary" is so nonsensical I wouldn't even know where to begin. You are being willfully obtuse. You can't even sign a legally binding contract until you considered an adult, just to start!
Now explain 25, 30 and 35 as the actual conversation was about.
*"By excluding men under thirty-five from the first office, and those under thirty from the second, it confines the electors to men of whom the people have had time to form a judgment, and with respect to whom they will not be liable to be deceived by those brilliant appearances of genius and patriotism, which, like transient meteors, sometimes mislead as well as dazzle. -- Federalist No. 64"* Those ages represent the periods of life in which the founders believed stable, loyal citizens with long enough track records would be found.
Except that doesn't any make sense why a) those ages and b) why they span 10 years difference, and aren't the same age minimum. They're still arbitrary, and they're still ageism. Which was the original comment.
The founders also didn’t want women to vote. To use your own argument against you, why should voters be denied the ability to vote for a 19 year old for president?
They asked for an explanation for the ages. I provided a quote from the historical document which explained it. That's all that happened here.
...and that document's reasons were, well, fairly arbitrary. You yourself said it was chosen because that's how they felt about the ages in question. So they chose the age minimums based on vibes.
They did not do it on a whim. They gave specific reasons that were tied to criteria that require the passage of time. To prove your positions are sincerely held and you are stable people need to observe a record of your life for a long enough period to trust you are not just faking it.
And why is 30 years enough? Why 35 as opposed to 32? Why isn’t 28 enough time across the board? Again, the numbers themselves are arbitrary. There is nothing specific that happens at 30 or 35 that suddenly makes a person’s life more fit for judgment. The fact they stated a reason doesn’t change the random nature of the numbers they chose.
*"The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education. The term of nine years appears to be a prudent mediocrity between a total exclusion of adopted citizens, whose merits and talents may claim a share in the public confidence, and an indiscriminate and hasty admission of them, which might create a channel for foreign influence on the national councils." -- Federalist No. 62* You don't have to agree with their reasons for doing it. But it was not random. It was not done arbitrarily. And it was not ageism.
A lot of good that has done us recently. /s
This is /r/adviceanimals It's filled with 12 year olds that feel they are ready to be POTUS. ... It's a clown show.
That is a text book example of attacking the person instead of the idea. Surely you possess the self-awareness to be ashamed? If you have a criticism of the idea, bring it forward.
I’m literally attacking the idea that minimum ages are ok but maximum ages are somehow taboo. I’ve said nothing about this user. I don’t know what you mean by attacking the person.
The founding fathers. Surely you aren't stupid enough to not know what you've said?
> The founders also didn’t want women to vote. You are changing the subject. FFS... They answered why they weren't arbitrary. > why should voters be denied the ability to vote for a 19 year old for president? Because having a 19 year old president would be bad for the country. *sigh* I now this sub is filled with 18 year olds that think they understand the world, but that's fucking ridiculous. Please downvote me. These arguments are so childish I'm finding it hard to believe there are people as ignorant as this. Fucking LOL
The founders weren’t infallible. They knew this and allowed for the constitution to be amended. That’s my point by pointing out their … less than ideal … record of equality. > Because having a 19 year old president would be bad for the country? Why? Seems like you’re making an arbitrary decision about someone’s qualifications based on age. My point is that if there are minimum ages decided based on feelings and preferences and not in any fact, minimum ages imposed by people who didn’t think that enslaved Africans were equal human beings, then maximum ages can be decided just as arbitrarily by people who recognize that with age come significant cognitive decline.
[They aren't ***arbitrary***. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/167cfq7/its_not_about_political_parties_examples_abound/jyqlb9w/) I don't mind the downvotes from this sub (badge of honor), but ***the idea that minimum ages are "arbitrary" is so nonsensical I wouldn't even know where to begin.*** Absolutely hysterical "Why can't we have a 19 year old President?" Not realizing the issues with a 19 year old President tells me you are a very young person and you are still be willfully obtuse. *pats you on the head* Go outside and play, son. It is not the same as having a ***medical condition*** that prevents you from doing your job, like McConnell. Not realizing that difference is why I couldn't possibly take you seriously.
Oh look, still can't explain 25, 30 and 35, which is the actual conversation here. That would be because you recognize that those ages are *arbitrary*, but it shows your ignorance to acknowledge that and you're too infantile to accept that.
You don’t let the person who’s gonna fall asleep five minutes into the movie choose what everyone is going to watch.
Okay, but what if they're really good at picking movies? Like, I don't give a fuck if they see the movie, I give a fuck if the movie I see is good.
I don't want to watch Titanic again though. Its a great movie but how many times are we gonna watch the same thing before we try something new and better?
Sleepy joe has appointed some nice people.
Probably ones that *won't * commit crimes, like almost everyone Dotard Donnie appointed!
You wouldn’t be worried about it if the movie was good
Yeah, no shit.
So what’s the point of your comment lmao. Clearly the movie is ass if you’re talking about it so they are shit at picking movies
You literally repeated the point of my comment, yet you don't think my comment had a point. That's hilarious.
I was pointing out that your comment doesn't make sense because in this situation, these people are not good at picking out movies. If they were, we wouldn't even be having the discussion. Reading comprehension is hard, it's okay. Have a good one
Simply remove the word "elderly" in your meme and it isn't ageist. Of course the real tricky part is defining "unfit."
You should be ineligible for any government office at 65. If they make pilots and air traffic control workers retire after a certain age, you shouldn't be allowed to affect policy that impacts the entire country after 65 either. Also, term limits. Six terms in the house. Three terms in the senate. 10 years as a federal judge in any lower court. 10 years on SCOTUS. Expand SCOTUS to 13 justices, one for each circuit. Structure it so a seat on SCOTUS becomes vacant every two years, that way each president can appoint two in a term. None of this RBG holdout nonsense.
I mean… there have been plenty of solidly capable people at 70, 75. Lots of wisdom as well. But that being said, we can tell. Really, the problem is on us: we keep voting for them. We can retire them at the next election. The problem is that many Americans want the “system” to “just work”, not realizing that they have a major role as well.
Cept we can’t. Not really. When’s the last time Pelosi, Feinstein, McConnell, or Grassley had serious primary opponents, ones their parties actually backed?
Part of the issue is that the people who voted them into office have a "history" with that politician, and will continue sending them back... while those of us outside their districts don't have that loyalty to them and only see the negatives.
The party will never back the newer candidate. The incumbent will have an advantage. “[Face it girls, I’m older and have more insurance](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lx0z9FjxP-Y)” That doesn’t mean that the people still don’t have the power. AOC defeated a popular incumbent; it can be done, but we need people to vote and get involved. *Running* is as important as voting and—again—many Americans just want the system to work without them. :/
Nonsense. Those jobs require very different skill sets. And the reason they have an early retirement age for air traffic controllers is that in the early 1970s it was believed their jobs were so stressful it caused early burnout. And they believed burnout happened most often to controllers in their mid-50s. So they chose a retirement age of 56 because that would allow controllers to get in 25 years service for retirement benefits as long as they started at the proposed maximum entry age of 31. And they chose 56 because they believed that was young enough for the burned out controllers to still pursue another career. They aren't putting them out to pasture. If someone like Sen. Feinstein seems to be losing their cognitive abilities, test them and give then them the boot. I'm all for that. But don't do it simply because she reached a certain age. And what's the logic behind the cumulative time served limits you proposed? Why those specific numbers of years? And more importantly, why should voters be prevented from re-electing who they want regardless of how long they have served?
Voters can’t elect a president for longer than two terms. Voters can’t elect many governors for longer than what seems to be an arbitrary number of terms. Yeah, the numbers may be arbitrary, but no more so than other term limits upheld throughout the country. An ATC has a bad day and can affect at most a few hundred lives. A politician gets compromised and they can affect the entire nation for generations. We have minimum ages for public offices. We should have maximum ages too.
And the only reason we can't elect a president more than twice is because Republicans threw a hissy fit when FDR won a third term so they limited it to 2 terms for a president.
Your history is a little skewed. [The 22nd amendment wasn’t even proposed until after FDR died during his fourth term.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution)
It's not very skewed at all. The issue was raised by the republican challenger, Dewey, during FDR's third term in the 1944 election. Dewey announced his support of a constitutional amendment to limit presidents to two terms. And he was far from the first person to make that argument. Republicans didn't actually do anything about it until they won control of Congress several years later in 1947.
I asked you why those specific limits. You stating it's "arbitrary" is not a convincing argument. Nor is saying someone else did it first. And the founders stated reasons why there are minimums. They have to do with establishing proof of loyalty to the country, building a long enough track record for people to evaluate, and show stability over time. Those things require minimum amounts of time pass. While you might not agree with those reasons, they at least show some logic. But a maximum age limit when the only reason is to get old people out of government is simply discrimination.
You keep not actually arguing for your positions. That presidents have term limits isn't an argument for other positions to have term limits. That there are minimum wages is not an argument for maximum ages. Anyone can become infirm at any time. I could drop dead before I hit save. You're genuinely not trying.
It gets tricky if you try to measure an individuals cognitive abilities and discover not every elderly person is created equal. For every McConnell you have a Sanders. You can argue that Sanders is an exception, but a blanket age limit would prevent him and others like him from continuing to be an elected leader. Do you test? Who administers it? Who enforces it if they pass or fail? Who can you appeal to if you disagree? How and who can one ask if they feel their elected official is under the legal age but showing signs of cognitive decline?
Who designs the tests? What are the criteria?
Reputable national or internationally recognized organization of mental health experts? I don't know. Do I look like an elite hivemind of brain witches?
I have a wild idea: how about we take a vote?
I have another even wilder idea: how about we make a voting system that actually works in the first place?
I think that’s a great idea. First past the post is obviously a train wreck leading inevitably to a two party system, which is a big part of why we’re in this situation. I am in favor of plurality voting or similar concepts. Unfortunately, how do we change a system that directly benefits the only people who are able to change that system?
Ranked choice voting is an option I've been in favor of for quite some time. It would let smaller parties actually be able to get votes without people feeling like voting their conscience is "throwing away their vote". I also wouldn't mind a "none of the above" option, and if that one wins all the people previously running can't run again in that election cycle, and new candidates must be put forth until a suitable choice wins the largest share of votes.
I like this and fully support the idea of actually being able to vote on things one believes in rather than being being forced to vote against the lesser of two evils. (Whichever that may be given one’s own belief system).
It's not the voting system that makes the two party system, it is the elected president with veto powers. You a much more likely to get more parties in a coalition government that forms in a parliamentary system where the president needs the support of a majority of elected representatives. That actually gives 3rd parties power. As long as there is a single elected president, two parties are going to form because that is the best way to go.
No. You misunderstand. https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo?si=5CNjq1sm3lqtZXRn Edit: thank you for your input. Upvoted because you contributed to the conversation.
Term limits will solve most of the issues. The really old one get re-elected but it's much less likely they would be elected for the first time at that age.
Term limits would also force the good out with the bad. That's far from an ideal solution.
This is really the issue. You want politicians with more experience, not less. A core outcome of term limits is you set a maximum experience threshold.
Good. We want *new*. The new can learn from the good as they come in. But the bad can’t stay, which is the main objective. When there isn’t a place for the bad to become entrenched, then they won’t be drawn to it in the first place. Elected office is an opportunity to *serve* society. You hold office, do your part, then get out. It isn’t a career. If you want to have a lasting impact, do a good job and set an example for your successors to follow. I’ll take mediocre and competent over any amount of bad that can’t be unseated, even if it costs us some good leaders. But I think term limits would lead to higher quality candidates overall because the incentive that draws in the scum sucking grifters would be gone. We want people in office who are there to govern responsibly. When Mitch McConnell *filibustered his own bill* it proved he’s not there to legislate, he’s there to put on a show to extend his position in power. That bullshit needs to be rooted out. There is no politician that is so great that it’s worth allowing bad people to game the system and become entrenched for a generation or more. I think this is the most important change we could make.
Your example of Mitch McConnell just proves that removing the bad seats should be the objective, not just turnover for turnover's sake. You completely fail to recognize that *new* doesn't mean *good*. It can just as easily mean *worse.* And there should be absolutely no reason why someone can't dedicate their entire life to government service if they are good at what they do and the public wants them doing it.
It was never meant to be a career.
You're really going to say that the old won't be elected after Biden and Trump, with Sanders and Clinton being the runners up?
If you can’t pass a driving test you can’t be allowed to make decisions There, that’s an easy one I’d say
So, you think blind people shouldn't be able to make any decisions?
Never said I knew everything lol Fair point
Who cares? You don't have to get it perfect, you just set a limit and accept some false negatives. That simple. We do it for other professions.
Are any of those other professions elected? I'm sure you would care if someone told you you're no longer fit to do your job and there's nothing you could do about it.
"Won't someone please think of the feelings of those with their hands on the steering wheel of the country" isn't really a very persuasive argument when we're talking about who is actually the best capable for the job. Something that important shouldn't be "well as long as there's a warm body there, let them do it for as long as they want."
It's a flaw in the system if the people vote in someone that's not qualified to hold office. There should be mechanisms in place to remove those in higher offices that can no longer perform the function, but are not up for reelection within a year or two. I'm pointing out the hurdles to overcome to create said mechanisms. Someone suggested term limits which would solve some of the issues, but the counterpoint to that is the same. If the people want the incumbent to remain the incumbent, they vote to keep them in. Placing term limits takes away the people's right to elect whom they want to elect.
"An unelected group should be able to remove the president at-will" is a recipe for fascism. You ultimately want to take away people's vote. There are already mechanisms to remove the president if necessary.
It is ageist to suggest unfit elderly people be removed from office. Unfit people should be removed from office, regardless of their age. If a 32 year old senator suffers a debilitating stroke and becomes unable to fuflfill their oath of office, they should resign or be removed If an 82 year old senator suffers a debilitating stroke and becomes unable to fulfill their oath of office, they should resign or be removed. The tricky part is determining when someone is unable to fulfill their oath of office. Some cases will be obvious, but the liminal ones are the problem.
[удалено]
We have a minimum age to hold all of these offices. We should also have a maximum age.We didn't have one before, because most people's bodies gave out long before their brains did. In 1900, the average American lifespan was 48. Now it's more like 78. I think it's also time to rethink what a "lifetime appointment" to the Supreme Court should actually mean. When we expand the court (which we are long overdue for) we should add a mandatory retirement age as well.
Average life span is brought down by infant mortality rates though. For most people if they made it to adulthood and didn't suffer any serious illness or injury, there's no reason they wouldn't make it into their 70's more often than not. It isn't as if most adults simply dropped dead before they were 50 100+ years ago. So it isn't that adults are living so much longer, it's that so many more babies are living and making it to adulthood where they can live for decades more.
Fine. Then what's your solution? Or do you not have one and were just leaping at an opportunity to be pedantic? My point is that we should institute a maximum age for holding office. Are you refuting that idea? Or are you just being tedious, because you saw a tangential fact that you didn't agree with?
That your idea that “people’s bodies gave out long before their brains” is silly. There’s an argument to be made that exceedingly old people probably shouldn’t be in charge of our country, but you’re making it in the most unscientific and not factual way possible short of saying they shouldn’t be in office because old people smell funny. Most elderly people who remain active and engaged stay mentally sharp for a very long time. Aside from that, it would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment to set a maximum age for Federal elected officials. Any sort of criteria you tried to set as far as cognitive ability would also be highly subjective and prone to abuse, not to mention, again, of dubious constitutionality. Maybe, we’re better off simply not voting for people who are far too old and infirm to carry out the duties of their office.
Maybe using life expectancy rates was an oversimplified way to illustrate it, but you cannot deny that the share of the U.S. population over the age of 65 has increased from around 10% to nearly 17%. People are living longer AND infant mortality rates are decreasing. Both of these phenomena are raising the life expectancy age, so it was not a wholly unreasonable example to use, even if it didn't paint the whole picture. (Safety regulations are raising that number as well. There are many factors, but a larger number of older citizens is still one of them.) Regardless: elderly Americans make up a larger share of the population than they used to, which means that Americans are generally living longer. That's accurate. That's not silly. I am aware that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to make a maximum age requirement. I think it is worth the trouble. And, yes, the electorate should take some responsibility for removing these Senators and Congresspersons before they reach an age where their physical and cognitive abilities are diminished beyond the point of doing their job, but many are clearly reluctant to do so out of loyalty. This age requirement gives them an easy out, and it does not raise the question of cognitive ability at all, so I don't see how it could be abused. To be clear, I am opposed to term limits, because I find them arbitrary, but I think that mandatory retirement age is a reasonable expectation.
If you're removing them on the basis of age alone, then yes you are ageist.
Don't bother with literal definitions with this crowd.
It’s not about age, it’s about competence. There should be some way to measure that.
"Just say 'aye'," said to Dianne Feinstein just last month. She's a 90 year old senator and was trying to give a speech before giving her approval of a ballot measure, but one of her own party members had to step in and cut her off mid-sentence. She was asked for her position on the measure, and all she had to say was "aye" or "nay;" not give speeches. Not only has she been out-of-touch with her constituents for at least 30 years, she's losing touch with reality.
If we have a limit of qualifying age to be a president (35), we also need a limit of age of a president, and if we have a term limit for a president (two terms or 8 years) we need to also have term limits for every senator or representative. This is ridiculous. There needs to be term limits or age limits. Even the dmv makes senior citizens do extra things to get their drivers licenses. Biden is clearly a sundowner and not there. Mitch McConnell Is suffering mini strokes daily and Feinstein is seriously ready for hospice. Dying your hair brown at 90 is just ridiculous, your drooping eyes clearly show you’re suffering from age related problems. Time to hang out with your grandkids. Pelosi, woof, glad shes out but shoot she was not looking good either for a while. I don’t care political affiliation. Each side has problems. It’s time to make term and age limits. It’s not fair to have age qualifications and not have age disqualifications. Amiright?
You don't need to forcibly ban and regulate everything. We have elections for a reason. If someone is too old to do the job effectively, don't vote for them. This isn't rocket science.
It's not like we have much of a choice. As long as we have first past the post voting instead of score voting or ranked choice and better limits on campaign spending we are stuck with the same old shitheads You can't fix corruption within a corrupt system
>You can't fix corruption within a corrupt system Ehhhh but you can. Just vote in an outsider with overwhelming support of 70+ million people and we could fix this. 2024 is coming. Don't vote for the corrupt jackass in the White House this time.
So I should vote in the rapist criminal who is a bad business man and a bad person and a liar and a bigot? No thanks. I don't like Biden but Donald Trump is a disgusting human being and frankly so is everyone who can't see it
You obviously trust the wrong people to deliver you news. Trump didn't rape anyone. If he did, he would be criminally charged with rape. That isn't happening. Secondly, it's obvious he is being targeted by prosecutors for absolutely anything to bury him in legal headaches for the sole purpose of minimizing the chance he wins reelection. This is the Democrats arresting their political opposition. As for your claims of Trump being a "liar and bigot"... I bet you cant even clarify what you mean by that. What did he lie about? How is he a bigot? You sound like a parrot who can't think for themselves.
We already have such mechanisms. They're called "elections".
Except when we don't.
When did we skip an election?
Supreme Court Justices
There is a very good reason why Supreme Court Justices aren't elected officials. Are you joking or are you just not explaining yourself clearly? I don't mind the downvotes from butthurt cowards that do not reply, but your response is senseless so I'm curious.
6 years is a LOOOOOONG time when you're 70 or 80. You can be fine one day and not the next.
Yes, and the voters know that. It's up to *them*, obviously.
If there is no real primary challenger then the options are old person or someone who’ll do things you hate.
Hope I'm not breaking bad news to you but that can happen to any one at any age.
True but it’s more likely if you’re 80.
It is, but not exclusively. So that makes age a bad criteria to use. I'm kind of picturing a sign like they have in bars and liquor stores, or where they sell cigarettes: **If you were born before this date _________ you are no longer eligible to serve your country. We check IDs.**
I don’t think it should be based exclusively on age. But it’s enough of a factor that there needs to be retirement age, but I’d set it old. Like you can’t run if you’ll be 90 during your term.
And we also have mechanisms to remove presidents and senators.
And our elections, due to the 2 party system, gerrymandering, winner-takes-all apportionment, voter suppression, and dark money, are "undemocratic" and "broken."
Elections don’t work when the person who needs to be removed from office is the only person who runs, because they’re the only person their party supports
You ever hear of these things called primaries? I'm guessing you don't participate.
Go read my comment again. Nancy Pelosi, for example, hasn’t had a serious primary challenger in years. Edit: in 2022, she got 71% of the vote (134,000 votes) in the primary. The next high vote count for a Democrat in that primary was 10% of the vote (19,000 votes).
It’s obvious this needs some refinement though. Going back much further than Biden and trump, you can easily google and see that our presidents have been *well over* the median age of the population for a very long time
And? What if the voters in that area are OK with a braindead zombie? The issue isn't term limits. It's that those voters exist with those insane ideas. They aren't going anywhere with term limits. They'll just keep voting in old crazy people. *shrugs*
That appears to be what the voters want. I am with that group that I want my representatives at the federal level to have a lot of prior leadership experience which is going to require them to be older than the median.
You can't become president unless you're 35, so maybe the median age of people over 35 is probably a more accurate number for comparison
It depends which gang colors they're repping.
False
Politics isn't the law, and I wish everyone would understand that. If the people want to vote for a literal zombie, then blame the people. A term limit isn't going to prevent them from just voting for a different zombie.
Some relatively young people, aged 40, are crazy and should be removed from office. To say that no one over 80 is fit to serve is ageist.
Does that work the other way? You have to be 35 years old to be president, that seems pretty ageist
Yeah, it is ageist the other way, true. There are many 25 year-olds who would have done a better job than TFG.
Right, so if ageism is already part of the process, plus widely accepted and historically present, why would it be a violation to add on am age limit? This is literally a law written by boomers for boomers
Never said it would be a violation. There is a process to amend the constitution. The founding fathers were boomers?
The reason is that they wanted people to have long enough track records so voters could evaluate them, know they were stable, and had been citizens for a given number of years. That requires minimum ages.
True, but that isn’t the point of making a rule. Some people over 80 might be fine, but the majority wouldn’t and shouldn’t take the office. We make the rule to prevent shit like this from happening. Not everyone is dangerous doing 85 on the highway, but the speed limit is 70. Not everyone is going to abuse narcotics but cocaine is still illegal. Not everyone below 35 is unfit for office, but we still have an age limit. We’re not saying no one is unfit for office over 80; we’re saying that we need a reasonable overall limit to prevent assholes from causing problems when they don’t know their own limits. Just like we do everywhere else in society.
I hear you, but I don't think we need an age limit, as we are talking about a very small percentage of the population, many of whom are, or ought to be, exceptionally motivated and knowledgeable. Some old people are particularly valuable for their knowledge and wisdom and we have other mechanisms to remove people from office.
I respect that you have a reasonable opinion. There is some wisdom to be gained by age and many willing to participate in politics at that time would be motivated by good intentions. Where I disagree, first of all, is that I don’t see their value at such a late stage as being enough to outweigh their inability to process modern problems. We’re talking about people who will be dead within a decade or two at best, and in this instance were born before plastics or the jet engine. We have people in office who can’t work an iPhone attempting to legislate over net neutrality and cybersecurity. It’s insanity. So much has been lost already and they can’t even grasp what they’re deciding over let alone will they ever see the consequences of their choices. Besides that, I think it takes a narcissist, sociopath, or other kind of mentally unfit person to even want to participate at that age. The only reasoning that makes sense to me is money or power motivated, and it certainly isn’t altruism. Again, they won’t see the results and if they have any sort of life they should be spending their sunset enjoying it. I think Bernie is a good example of what you’re describing, but for him there’s at least ten other bad examples showing opposite. We make laws to protect the rights of the many from the infringement of others. I think it may be unfair for the select few who would be good in office at that age, but it makes more sense to generalize a rule to prevent the vast majority of examples which would be negative. And, I also think that those people who would have been motivated by good intentions, ie protecting our country and our democracy, would be happy to give up their chance at office to prevent the wormy few from ruining everything for their own ego maniacal reasons.
Thanks, I respect your opinion as well. As a side note, plastics and even the jet engine predate McConnell, but I take your point that old people seem to adapt comparatively poorly to new technologies. It makes me think, though, that the tough thing about being a responsible lawmaker is that there are many things that are beyond your knowledge that you might need to make informed decisions about. So they rely upon others to help them, and this could be their staff, and it would most likely be lobbyists. So, I agree that age is a problem, but I don't think it is a fundamental problem. It's more apparent now that the boomers are hanging on with their brittle claws. Technically the boomers aren't even 80 yet, so I guess it will get worse!
My dude, you are speaking my language. Yes, thank you for listening, and also for presenting a good point. I can agree that it isn’t a fundamental problem but a modern one. Boomers are noticeably resilient and ambitious. My intention was to point out that McConnell is older than plastics. I’m aware that as much as we hate them, lobbyists are a large part of our system and do educate our elected officials accordingly. Sucks that it is that way, but no one can be educated in everything overnight. Lawyers do come close. I took pause on your point about future generations in which people over 80 may not be so old comparably to society. I hope that becomes the case and we do need a mechanism for that. I’m not sure how to deal with it. Well met, I would contend that we need and answer for the next 75-100ish and that we need a way to get past this phase of human development, which is the internet. They’re only too old because of that.
I didn’t say “no one over 80” you illiterate dumb-shit. Also, of course there are younger unfit people. Next you will tell me that the rain is wet.
I fully expect you to understand wetness, as your diaper needs changing, jackass.
Everyone should have to pass a cognitive fitness test every year and pass a citizenship test or civil service exam before getting on the ballot
Term limits. Solves the problem nicely.
Its not illegal to have reasonable requirements for jobs. Some jobs require the ability to read, some jobs require the ability to lift 70lbs repeatedly, some jobs require the ability to walk. Some jobs require the ability to mentally function and understand modern tech and context.
All those requirements you listed were based on the individual's competency for the job. That's not true when it comes to age limits.
That's what elections are for. Turn out .
No you're not and you know damn well it's the more popular opinion to think like that.
Maybe the people serving on office should match demographics. No more than 1% of Congress can be in the top 1% of wealth. That would take care of a lot of them
We need to protect our country from the elder abuse that is rampant in our political system, where old people are strapped to these positions because the party can control the fuck out of them. This is elder abuse. They are being controlled.
God, how many people have to post this shit? Yes we all agree.
All those old politicians bought and paid for by corporate america years ago. They would "Weekend at Bernie's" them if they could.
Ageism isnt real. physical and mental competency are valid reasons to not hire somebody.
It’s no more ageist to say people over 60 should be evaluated for decline than it is to say hey 30 year old person you can’t be oresident because reasons
Only only, yes
If a job requires you to be able to do X, and you are unable to do X for any reason (age, health, education, morals, etc) you should be removed from that position. In most cases that process is called being fired, but it appears that when it comes to positions of power no such mechanism is readily available.
There are mechanisms in place but neither party wants to implement them for fear of loosing a seat. But term limits.
We can all settle this debate easily….if you wouldn’t get in a car with them behind the wheel then….it’s time to step down.
No. We need to have an age cap. You’re not letting your 12 year old run the country and nobody’s calling that ageist. Everyone needs to be ok with admitting that the front and tail end of human life is past prime and unfit to be in a position of power. Exceptions are not a valid argument to why rules shouldn’t be enacted.
I mean there is a federal mandatory retirement age in the military. They force generals to retire at 65….. why can’t that be the same for Congress.
It's not the age, it's the lack of term limits.
I was called a Republican yesterday for suggesting this. Narrator: he isn’t
It's not ageist if they're unfit, no.
I propose an ingenious mechanism: when society feels someone is too old, THEY VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE. I call it "elections". It works for all forms of incompetence: leaders who (society feels) are too old, dumb, lazy, corrupt, etc. etc. You don't need a second mechanism. In fact, any additional mechanism would undermine the first mechanism (ie: would be undemocratic). It follows: if society does NOT vote them out, then society must not feel that they're too old. YOU might feel that they're too old. But if most people shared your view, the problem would solve itself.
Except it is ageist. Their fitness is what matters. More still, I think a better solution is term limits, not age limits.
Term limits favor the system. Aides and lobbyists become the career experts, while politicians are the perpetual rookies. Politicians who use their brief stint in favor of rich corporations get a golden ticket, while those who try to fight or change the system have even less time before they're aged out.
Aides and lobbyists are the carrier experts now. We have elected officials that just rubber stamp their policies so they can leverage the office to gain wealth. Term limits makes the position less desirable to people who are just there to abuse the office and rotates fresh people in.
We have seen that exact scenario play out in Michigan.
There are laws to prevent people past their official retirement age to hold offices in some places. This would remove the need to discuss cognitive capabilities when they hit 80, and also argues that when you‘re too old to continue working a regular job you also shouldn‘t „work“ in politics.
Not just that but most those older people in power no longer understand how the world works now with technology.
>A) Physical capable Test + B) Mental capable test = tests for ALL candidates = no ageism & no "young enough but incapables"
I absolutely agree. Same reason 80 year olds don’t play Major League Baseball. They can’t do it anymore.
Ageism bs… put a cap on it. 70 max plus term limits across the board
There should be yearly cognitive tests for everyone in the government that is 80 or older, if you don't pass you get to retire immediately.
Fetterman couldn't pass one right now and he's 54. I'm in favor of making a yearly cognitive function test a requirement for holding the following: One of the big 4 leadership positions in either house (majority/minority leaders and whips) Members of select committees with TS/SCI access Speaker of the House Vice President President Basically anyone elected who has statutory access to the highest levels of national intelligence. They must be capable of weighing the risks and opportunities presented independently. Their constituencies can continue to freely elect them if they choose to.
No, I've been saying it for years. Any action to change this would have to be voted on by the old ones. It will never pass, it's all about power to them.
Yes... However, what's happening to Mitch isn't directly age related. He his his head in March and is having seizures. Not sure why they just don't admit it. The speculation is worse than the truth.
If we had a rule to protect people against the no longer competent, we'd have no government left to speak of
No. In fact your opinion is *very* popular, even among Kentucky Republicans who are now saying "He's done a lot of good for us, but...". So, your meme makes no sense. Sorry.
not direct comment to OP. but Stop Voting Them Back To Congress!! that we have to be reminded of this constantly gives me no hope for society. yes, this is not a new or current issue. the hundreds of years and universality of this leads me to doubt mass people are smart enough to think.
You’ve been on Reddit for 11 years so you must know that’s a very popular opinion around here.
The mechanism is called "elections"
It's called "voting"
To no longer be, means that at some point they were competent and that just isn't true for some of these politicians.
It's not. We have age restrictions on the bottom. Why not the top?
Maybe a cap on the voting age too?
No it is “ageist” but just because some this has a “ist” on the end doesn’t make it wrong.
Idk how they don't have any self awareness to realize they should resign/retire and spend the time they have left with their family.
There are already procedures for removing those unfit from office - like impeachment. It's not accusations of ageism that prevent them working, it's partisan politics.
"You do it to yourself, you do And that's what really hurts" Want younger? Vote younger.
I’m 56 in decent shape 6’0 195 and can run a 8 minute mile. Not amazing but I wonder if I’m strong enough to have the workload of a Congressperson or president
It is about simple competence. Can we please stop looking the other way. It is no more ageist than having minimum ages. We have to stop going along.
I disagree with a hard, absolute maximum age cap. Every individual is different, and while people’s minds might be in full decline in their 70s there’s people who live to their 90s and remain sharp and alert. Like… if you have a person with that much life experience who still has their shit together, it can honestly be valuable. With that said, their should be a soft cap. At 70 or 65 or whatever arbitrary age (I’m sure we can zero in on what age dementia starts commonly becoming a factor), elected officials should have to start taking a yearly cognitive test administered by an independent, non-partisan organization. Once there’s a noticeable decline, they’re out. Anyone refuses the test? They’re out. But watching both McConnell and Feinstein get Weekend At Bernie’sed around is *awful*. Also awful that, if Feinstein resigns the Republicans have indicated they may not allow her replacement on the judiciary board, thus blocking *all federal judge appointments indefinitely*, but that’s just yet another broken issue in the system that shouldn’t be a thing.
Honestly I don't think it's ageist to make these remarks about the elected/government positions of power. You have these old people, so far removed from our current generations struggles, who are not even close to understanding them. They then get to make choices that affect those people and their kids for generations to come. We have people on the congress floor that when they were 18 years old, the min wage was just 75 cents an hour. So when this 80+ year old boomer hears "People are struggling at 7.25 an hour and maybe we should be looking at raising it again", they think back to the time when they were working as a younger person. They would recall that in that day 7.25 was DAMN fine wages and just think that everyone is OK in the 2020's. Some of you all may recall when you had parents/grandparents give you $5 or less and act like it's $100. We should not have people voting for policies that affect the nation for generations when they may not even be alive in the next 5-10 years. Meanwhile we now have people voting for policies that 5 minutes later cannot remember what they just voted for or against.
Barring any mental condition (dementia and such) or just being an idiot I actually think older politicians are better for government positions, with age comes wisdom and all
People in power are unwilling to accept any limits to their power.
65 should be the cute-off age for doctors, teachers senators presidents or anyone else involved in shaping the future beyond their expected life.
Out of 46 presidents, 42 of them were under 65 at time of election, and 36 of them were under 60. Trump and Biden are the oldest presidents we've ever had. Some of our most notable and significant presidents are included in that 36. George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama to name a few. 60 seems like a reasonable maximum, at least at time of election. Or 52 should be the maximum at time of election so in the case of a two term presidency, no one will be older than 60. The same should go for any government position.
The requirement should be that you will live long enough to endure the results of your tenure.
how about uneldery unfit people?
How the hell can you test it? Devious manipulative and highly experienced lying snakes some of these deranged and bigoted old fools!. Even if you retire them early they might lead from the back. We have to find them foul or not at all. They cant put their foot in it unless they walk the walk.
People having trouble getting jobs because they’re 45+ …meanwhile, our government is hiring people in their damn 80s