Maybe we do some kind of public health indicators past 80 or something. I think it’s rather foolish to have some arbitrary age limit, especially when there are plenty of incompetent people of any age.
The voters should be the ones make the choice, in any case. Unless someone is found to be incapacitated by some agreed-upon metric.
Hard age limits are the only practical workable system.
We already have age limits in place for elected offices - just lower age limits. We don’t have someone fill out an IQ test to see if they’re eligible to be president - we just say no one under 35 can be president.
Any medical or cognitive test you could give to potential candidates would be instantly gamed. We’ve seen this with literacy tests. There is no health or cognition metric you can use that won’t be manipulated for political ends. Expect to see political ideologies declared mental illnesses, as has happened countless times through history.
No, hard age limits are the only way to go. Would banning presidents over 75 bar some perfectly qualified and capable people? Sure. But the under-35 limit has the same problem.
Could not disagree more. The generational warfare stuff is such bullshit.
Most especially as people are living longer and longer. We need people that have a longer view in there for sure. Older people - with the right amount of empathy and insight - have a lot to offer, especially if they have kids and grandkids. Pushing people out prematurely is rather stupid, if you ask me.
I’d be okay with lowering the age requirements for certain offices - at least where most people have a fully-developed PFC, anyway. In addition, there would be a huge benefit if more effort was put into raising up more leaders within the party, etc. More of a pipeline and more handoffs so there is not some big disconnect, but more of a continuity.
The party should not decide. When the party decides, they work for big business and undermine the democratic process. Politicians should be chosen by voters who elect them. In the case of recent presidential primaries the party has put their thumb on the scale to undermine voters. The party establishment is the problem.
They even failed to remove Biden from running for a second term. He had to drop out after a donor pulled funding. This showed that the people in charge of the party are not the politicians, but the donors. It was pathetic and the party should be treated as an extension of their rich donors. I don’t have a billion dollars, do you?
Thats an awful lot of work thats going to cost taxpayer money when “move over, gramps, let the next batch have a try” is completely free.
Who cares if there are still a couple good old people? There are also good young people chomping at the bit to take over. People who aren’t hopelessly out of touch with reality and the rest of the population.
People shouldn’t be in government past an age where they likely wont be alive for the next decade of consequences from their actions. I’d personally lower the cutoff to like 64. They got their chance to set policy, let people who will live in the world they are making be the ones who steer the boat.
If we try that and it ends up not working, we can reassess. But until we try we’ll never know because those people aim to die in office, and burn the place down on the way out.
Maybe we do some kind of public health indicators past 80 or something. I think it’s rather foolish to have some arbitrary age limit, especially when there are plenty of incompetent people of any age.
The voters should be the ones make the choice, in any case. Unless someone is found to be incapacitated by some agreed-upon metric.
Hard age limits are the only practical workable system.
We already have age limits in place for elected offices - just lower age limits. We don’t have someone fill out an IQ test to see if they’re eligible to be president - we just say no one under 35 can be president.
Any medical or cognitive test you could give to potential candidates would be instantly gamed. We’ve seen this with literacy tests. There is no health or cognition metric you can use that won’t be manipulated for political ends. Expect to see political ideologies declared mental illnesses, as has happened countless times through history.
No, hard age limits are the only way to go. Would banning presidents over 75 bar some perfectly qualified and capable people? Sure. But the under-35 limit has the same problem.
No, we literally need to enforce a retirement age on elected offices. You can’t run once you hit retirement age.
Nah.
Could not disagree more. The generational warfare stuff is such bullshit.
Most especially as people are living longer and longer. We need people that have a longer view in there for sure. Older people - with the right amount of empathy and insight - have a lot to offer, especially if they have kids and grandkids. Pushing people out prematurely is rather stupid, if you ask me.
I’d be okay with lowering the age requirements for certain offices - at least where most people have a fully-developed PFC, anyway. In addition, there would be a huge benefit if more effort was put into raising up more leaders within the party, etc. More of a pipeline and more handoffs so there is not some big disconnect, but more of a continuity.
The party should not decide. When the party decides, they work for big business and undermine the democratic process. Politicians should be chosen by voters who elect them. In the case of recent presidential primaries the party has put their thumb on the scale to undermine voters. The party establishment is the problem.
They even failed to remove Biden from running for a second term. He had to drop out after a donor pulled funding. This showed that the people in charge of the party are not the politicians, but the donors. It was pathetic and the party should be treated as an extension of their rich donors. I don’t have a billion dollars, do you?
Thats an awful lot of work thats going to cost taxpayer money when “move over, gramps, let the next batch have a try” is completely free.
Who cares if there are still a couple good old people? There are also good young people chomping at the bit to take over. People who aren’t hopelessly out of touch with reality and the rest of the population.
People shouldn’t be in government past an age where they likely wont be alive for the next decade of consequences from their actions. I’d personally lower the cutoff to like 64. They got their chance to set policy, let people who will live in the world they are making be the ones who steer the boat.
If we try that and it ends up not working, we can reassess. But until we try we’ll never know because those people aim to die in office, and burn the place down on the way out.
That is an option the voters always have.
Honestly, I think the ageism thing is just red herring for the elites to use to further atomize the population.