Upper Age Limit for POTUS Poll. A non partisan thread.

[QP!]

There is an imposed lower limit on what age someone has to be to run for POTUS and that is 35.

There is nothing stopping Diane Feinstein or Chuck Grassley running at age 90, as the logic is the 'voters can decide if someone is too old'.

Do you agree with that, and do you not then think having a lower limit exposes a hypocrisy, as the voters CANNOT decide if someone is too young.

See poll questions (choose more than one box) and if you think there should be upper and lower limits imposed by law, and not allowing the voters to decide, let us know at what ages you think they should be.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

The pole BLATANTLY leaves out a very important option.

What if one thinks that
there's no such thing as "too old'
but that a six year old might not be ready to be POTUS?

If somebody thinks that the thirty-five year old minimum is reasonable

but that all elderly people do not retain the same level of competence

and thus an upper age limit is inappropriate,

that person wasn't given an option.

I don't understand why everybody,

regardless of his / her line of work,

doesn't want to retire at 55 as I did.

That opinion, however,

doesn't qualify me to impose upper age limits.

 

[Yakuda]

There is an imposed lower limit on what age someone has to be to run for POTUS and that is 35.

There is nothing stopping Diane Feinstein or Chuck Grassley running at age 90, as the logic is the 'voters can decide if someone is too old'.

Do you agree with that, and do you not then think having a lower limit exposes a hypocrisy, as the voters CANNOT decide if someone is too young.

See poll questions (choose more than one box) and if you think there should be upper and lower limits imposed by law, and not allowing the voters to decide, let us know at what ages you think they should be.

I'd like to think the American electorate would be smart enough to decide either end of that spectrum but clearly, based on recent events, that's not the case. I would have no problem with a top limit but with guidelines.

 

[QP!]

The pole BLATANTLY leaves out a very important option.

What if one thinks that
there's no such thing as "too old'
but that a six year old might not be ready to be POTUS?

If somebody thinks that the thirty-five year old minimum is reasonable

but that all elderly people do not retain the same level of competence

and thus an upper age limit is inappropriate,

that person wasn't given an option.

I don't understand why everybody,

regardless of his / her line of work,

doesn't want to retire at 55 as I did.

That opinion, however,

doesn't qualify me to impose upper age limits.

Then you would click the poll option there should be no upper age limit only.

There is already a lower age limit, so if you do not say 'there should be none' then you are supporting the status quo on that end.


I would call that position, very short sighted and potentially hypocritical.

if you are going to go to the extremes on the low end then do so the same on the upper end. If a person can run at 110 years of age why cannot a person at 34 run?

But more importantly why do you fear the general population assessing the 6 year old (and 110 year old if you agree) and voting against them if not fit?

It seems to me that if you have a democracy and the populace thinks 'that 34 year old (X age) is someone i would vote for over anyone else right now, if only i could' then to have some arbitrary age limit imposed by other people sticking their finger in the air and saying 'this is what i think appropriate', is not a good way to do things.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

There is an imposed lower limit on what age someone has to be to run for POTUS and that is 35.

There is nothing stopping Diane Feinstein or Chuck Grassley running at age 90, as the logic is the 'voters can decide if someone is too old'.

Do you agree with that, and do you not then think having a lower limit exposes a hypocrisy, as the voters CANNOT decide if someone is too young.

See poll questions (choose more than one box) and if you think there should be upper and lower limits imposed by law, and not allowing the voters to decide, let us know at what ages you think they should be.

As much as I hate "ageism" in the workplace (usually as it is applied to people in their 50's), I am 100% in favor of limiting people to serving in these EXCEPTIONALLY important roles to those between a certain lower and upper range.

What does an 85 year old know about the kind of technological landscape we all have to live in. I'm almost 60 and I'm finding technology to be more and more annoying the older I get. It's not my world anymore. And it CERTAINLY isn't Mitch's or Diane's.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Then you would click the poll option there should be no upper age limit only.

There is already a lower age limit, so if you do not say 'there should be none' then you are supporting the status quo on that end.


I would call that position, very short sighted and potentially hypocritical.

if you are going to go to the extremes on the low end then do so the same on the upper end. If a person can run at 110 years of age why cannot a person at 34 run?

But more importantly why do you fear the general population assessing the 6 year old (and 110 year old if you agree) and voting against them if not fit?

It seems to me that if you have a democracy and the populace thinks 'that 34 year old (X age) is someone i would vote for over anyone else right now, if only i could' then to have some arbitrary age limit imposed by other people sticking their finger in the air and saying 'this is what i think appropriate', is not a good way to do things.

I apologize for hastily misreading the options.

Just as I oppose time limits, however, I also oppose restricting the electorate in other ways.

You've caused me to reconsider the 35 year old minimum as well.

Perhaps it didn't jump out at me so I've never given enough thought.

What really upsets me more than anything is the eighteen-year-old voting age.

The age eighteen is for acquiring skills at drinking and fucking
with the free time that you're not spending on educating yourself.

Voting is not for eighteen year olds
because they haven't been immersed in thinking politics
long enough to have any meaningful, fully thought-out opinions.

 

[QP!]

I am in the camp of 'no limits on either end' 'let the voters assess and decide'.

But if we must have a limit on the lower end, then i suggest 30, and then on the upper end 75.

It is not that a person younger than 30 cannot be responsible, but they will tend not to have enough life experience to make their considerations with. So they would have a very narrow (not necessarily wrong) world view.


And a person over 75 is likely very coherent but they also are making decisions based on their views from generations prior that will impact future generations long after they are gone. I think a POTUS should have a reasonable chance to be around and live the consequences of their decisions.

 

[QP!]

I apologize for hastily misreading the options.

Just as I oppose time limits, however, I also oppose restricting the electorate in other ways.

You've caused me to reconsider the 35 year old minimum as well.

Perhaps it didn't jump out at me so I've never given enough thought.

What really upsets me more than anything is the eighteen-year-old voting age.

The age eighteen is for acquiring skills at drinking and fucking
with the free time that you're not spending on educating yourself.

Voting is not for eighteen year olds
because they haven't been immersed in thinking politics
long enough to have any meaningful, fully thought-out opinions.

While i agree with you a lack of life experience can be an issue for younger voters. The corresponding potential for older voters, is that they can have so much experience in one era that they become set in their ways and cannot accept needed change for the future.

Older voters might tend to vote not to adopt 'new ways' that might be key for the future, as 'that is not how we were raised, and what worked for us'.

My view, is you need both to balance each other out.

 

[BidenPresident]

And a person over 75 is likely very coherent but they also are making decisions based on their views from generations prior that will impact future generations long after they are gone. I think a POTUS should have a reasonable chance to be around and live the consequences of their decisions.

The idea that a generation of persons represents a coherent set of beliefs is false.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I think the current 35 minimum age is appropriate while 70 should be the upper limit. Being president is a very stressful and intense job. We need someone physically up to it. Sure, some people over 70 might handle it well, but putting that as the limit would be fine. Law enforcement jobs and the military have mandatory retirement ages of 55 to 60. The president is the Commander in Chief. 70 is more than high enough.

Same goes for congress.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

There is nothing stopping Diane Feinstein or Chuck Grassley running at age 90, as the logic is the 'voters can decide if someone is too old'.

if the issue is truly only about the POTUS, why bring up either?......

 

[QP!]

The idea that a generation of persons represents a coherent set of beliefs is false.

Polling on any issue proves that generations tend to hold similar beliefs based on their experiences from growing up in that generation.

That is not to speak to any individual, where differences do exist, but over all you can certainly speak to generational beliefs.

'Young people below 30 are much more open to Bernie type policies'

'Older people over the age of 50 are much more resistant to Bernie type policies'.


Both are true, even if not true for everyone in the groups.

 

[QP!]

if the issue is truly only about the POTUS, why bring up either?......

Because i was saying both Feinstein and Grassley can currently run for POTUS despite their age and clear growing problems.

 

[BidenPresident]

Polling on any issue proves that generations tend to hold similar beliefs based on their experiences from growing up in that generation.

That is not to speak to any individual, where differences do exist, but over all you can certainly speak to generational beliefs.

'Young people below 30 are much more open to Bernie type policies'

'Older people over the age of 50 are much more resistant to Bernie type policies'.


Both are true, even if not true for everyone in the groups.

Seems false. I am over 50 and support Sanders. Problem with polls is people confuse quantification with truth.

 

[BidenPresident]

Because i was saying both Feinstein and Grassley can currently run for POTUS despite their age and clear growing problems.

Can Feinstein even stand up? I do not know how to do it, but she clearly is not competent.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Can Feinstein even stand up? I do not know how to do it, but she clearly is not competent.

or the problem is simply that some folks don't realize they are in the minority.......

 

[Phantasmal]

I’m old enough to remember when orange was an option, I miss those days.

 

[QP!]

Seems false. I am over 50 and support Sanders. Problem with polls is people confuse quantification with truth.

..."That is not to speak to any individual, where differences do exist, but over all you can certainly speak to generational beliefs..."

..."Both are true, even if not true for everyone in the groups...."

Invariably people always speak to demographic truths with personal anecdotes, think that the latter somehow disproves the former. It does not.

So if i say 'young people below age 30 are more in favour of climate change measures issues than older people over 60', i will have a right wing young person say 'I do not even believe in climate change sot hat cannot be true and an older person say 'i am fully in favor of those measures... so that cannot be true'.

That is not how demographic data works.

Black women also tend to vote more Democrat, even if not all do.

 

[BidenPresident]

Invariably people always speak to demographic truths with personal anecdotes, think that the latter somehow disproves the former. It does not.

So if i say 'young people below age 30 are more in favour of climate change measures issues than older people over 60', i will have a right wing young person say 'I do not even believe in climate change sot hat cannot be true and an older person say 'i am fully in favor of those measures... so that cannot be true'.

That is not how demographic data works.

Black women also tend to vote more Democrat, even if not all do.

Like I said, polls are false beliefs about truth.

 

[QP!]

Can Feinstein even stand up? I do not know how to do it, but she clearly is not competent.

Feinstein is the walking dead. An example of elder abuse but Nancy Pelosi has her daughter holding her up and doing a weekend at Bernie's as they want her to make it to the end of the term so they can get that seat to Adam Schiff in a primary. If she steps down early, than Gavin Newsom gets to fill the seat and he has already promised a black woman who will likely be a progressive. Nancy and the establish Dems hate the progressives only second to how much they hate Trump.