Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If only we had some system where the populace could decide on whether or not a candidate is too old.
Like, you know ... voting ...
Oh.
Wait.
From what we have seen in the primaries this year, most of America doesn't have a problem with age.
Most of Bernie's supporters were younger folks. They didn't see his age as an issue.
Same goes for Democrats. More young people say they are Democrats than GOP. Yet the Dems decided to go with the oldest candidate, the one with the most experience in government. (Of course there were other factors involved such as name recognition, finances, etc...)
The GOP tends to lean towards older presidents in general it seems.
Instead of changing the Constitution, we need more quality people on both sides who are younger and experienced. Let's be honest, running for and being president these days is not for everyone. Good quality younger leaders in this country can make a better living outside of government. Why put themselves through the ringer just to be president?
Age restrictions on presidential eligibility are legal requirements. You asked a question, I answered in the context of the question at hand; I misunderstood nothing.
If you want to talk about a vague concept, it has nothing to do with legal requirements.
I don't think discrimination is a vague concept. And some amendments to the constitution have come about because of discrimination issues. You have no real argument that a 34 year old is less qualified than a 35 year old just because of their age. Except that it is in the constitution.
And there is an age requirement of 30 to be in the Senate, yet 3 senators under 30 have been sworn in. So if a 34 year old won the election who knows what would happen.
But there is a real argument that older people are less capable than younger people. That is one reason that certain federal jobs and related jobs have mandatory retirement ages.
Jobs with mandatory retirement ages include: Federal law enforcement, Foreign Service Officers, Air Traffic Controllers and also related to that Commercial Pilots. There are state level jobs that have mandatory retirement ages. Yet something as important as POTUS you can be 95 and elected if you manage to get enough electoral votes.
I think I would support the limit to match up with social security eligibility date. And I am somewhat concerned with help but mostly concerned with making sure we can develop a bench of leaders. And if people have careers spanning too long into life - people who will be most impacted (by potential lifetime) by the legislation won’t have an opportunity to impact it.
Social security eligibility for partial benefits begins at age 62. This would have ruled out seven former Presidents who were 62 or older at the start of their presidency. If the requirement was that they could not turn 62 before the election, Andrew Jackson would also have been ineligible to run.
From what we have seen in the primaries this year, most of America doesn't have a problem with age.
Most of Bernie's supporters were younger folks. They didn't see his age as an issue.
Same goes for Democrats. More young people say they are Democrats than GOP. Yet the Dems decided to go with the oldest candidate, the one with the most experience in government.
Democrats wanted the person who matched up best against Trump. Being Veep helped as well as being a moderate. Not sure age helped him or hurt him.
The DNC pushed for Biden. Bernie was not an option and Bloomberg did not need to DNC and had too much baggage. Plus he had zero charisma. So they pushed hard to get the other candidate to drop out and support Biden. I think voters have less to do with the nomination process than they believe.
Social security eligibility for partial benefits begins at age 62. This would have ruled out seven former Presidents who were 62 or older at the start of their presidency. If the requirement was that they could not turn 62 before the election, Andrew Jackson would also have been ineligible to run.
I would mean full social security benefits, not partial. It looks like that is moving to 67. I would be fine with some other proxy for typical retirement age.
I am a senior but loathe the current setup with so many geezers in power positions. So I agree with a 70 cap on Presidential candidates. Furthermore, it should be the same for Congress. Younger blood and fresher ideas are needed to advance the country.
I don't think discrimination is a vague concept. And some amendments to the constitution have come about because of discrimination issues. You have no real argument that a 34 year old is less qualified than a 35 year old just because of their age. Except that it is in the constitution.
And there is an age requirement of 30 to be in the Senate, yet 3 senators under 30 have been sworn in. So if a 34 year old won the election who knows what would happen.
But there is a real argument that older people are less capable than younger people. That is one reason that certain federal jobs and related jobs have mandatory retirement ages.
Jobs with mandatory retirement ages include: Federal law enforcement, Foreign Service Officers, Air Traffic Controllers and also related to that Commercial Pilots. There are state level jobs that have mandatory retirement ages. Yet something as important as POTUS you can be 95 and elected if you manage to get enough electoral votes.
Of course I have no argument that qualification would swing on a one year, or even a day of age difference; why would you suggest I do? I also have not asked for an itemization of jobs with maximum age restrictions or the history of the United States Senate - why are you addressing these things to me?
Discrimination is in the eyes of the beholder, thus, a vague concept. Without creating legal descriptions it cannot be controlled.
A poster here asked why requiring the president to be at least 35 is not discrimination and I provided the definition of age discrimination as used in the law. Your opinion is irrelevant to age requirements of the Constitution or the law.
Never did quite understand a person's mindset that assumes 'age' determines functional reasoning or ability to lead.
So point blank, leave the bias attitude behind. Elect based on the minimal amount of lies being uttered. At least then you can have some sensibility.
If Indira Gandhi can lead in her near golden years...then let's use some rationale that leadership skills are fine tuned thru years of experiences.
That being said, in the US people are deemed “old” for many jobs at...45. Try getting hired at a bank at this age if you have not previous experience. A warehouse worker at 50? You must be kidding. You’re tired, worn out and totally inefficient. Let’a see how many industries hire people at 50. They don’t want to evaluate you personally. Just being above certain age it’s enough to make you less desirable, even if you’re in great shape. Regardless, in case you’re not up to the task, they can always let you go. What damage can a slow insurance clerk cause?
But then there is politics. In politics you’re never old. A 78 year old wants to become president? Why not? Like wine they are getting better with time. A 86 year senator? Time to think of the next term. And there’s even a bigger absurdity: you are better with no experience at all! Sure, why not this put this country in the hands of an inexperienced candidate? What can go wrong? Apparently less then the damage the unfit warehouse worker can cause. Tomorrow I will apply to Citibank and tell them with pride: gentlemen, my greatest asset is that I’ve never set foot in a bank before!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
