Age limit for political positions- Split from: An observation on gun control

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Are we?

The actual subjects are 81 and 77 years old; Biden and Trump. 

Edited February 9 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The actual subjects are 81 and 77 years old; Biden and Trump. 

The actual subjects are anyone running for President. That is what prompted this branch of the conversation; the suggestion that a candidate for President must be less than 65 years old.

[TheVat]

On 2/8/2024 at 7:01 AM, dimreepr said:

80+ year olds should NOT!!! have a political opinion, let alone a finger on the trigger...

This is where we branched off from the thread topic of gun control.  Dim the Derailer.  Followed by MigL the Meanderer.  I haven't worked out droll monikers for the rest of us, but we're all complicit.  We should throw ourselves on the mercy of the moderators.   Maybe a split thread.  Metrics of Fitness to Hold High Office?  

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 hours ago, zapatos said:

 

Is Biden showing 'mental decline' (which I suppose is an inability to properly function in society) or are we primarily seeing memory lapses? I'm curious because they seem two very different things to me.

The POTUS needs a fair bit higher bar to reach than the ability to properly function in society. Biden is still capable, and it wouldn't be unreasonable for him to be a member of congress,IMO, but I think it's a reach to assume he can be fully competent as POTUS for the next 5 years. That should be the expectation of anyone asked to vote for him in November, except for the fact that he also has the great attribute of not being Trump.

[zapatos]

43 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

but I think it's a reach to assume he can be fully competent as POTUS for the next 5 years.

That is kind of what I am getting at. What type of symptoms (if that's the right word) is he showing that would indicate he cannot be fully competent as POTUS? Is it more than memory lapses? I ask because as I said, I'm not sure that memory lapses indicate a lack of competence.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

That is kind of what I am getting at. What type of symptoms (if that's the right word) is he showing that would indicate he cannot be fully competent as POTUS? Is it more than memory lapses? I ask because as I said, I'm not sure that memory lapses indicate a lack of competence.

It would certainly be a detriment to processing information at the level required if you struggled to recall parts of that information.

[iNow]

I think you shouldn’t be allowed to be president if you don’t sleep well because cognitive function declines when tired. Also, presidents can’t be allowed to drink camomile tea or take melatonin for the same reason. Oh, and no turkey. Even though it’s been debunked, it has tryptophan so you’re not eligible now either. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

I think you shouldn’t be allowed to be president if you don’t sleep well because cognitive function declines when tired. Also, presidents can’t be allowed to drink camomile tea or take melatonin for the same reason. Oh, and no turkey. Even though it’s been debunked, it has tryptophan so you’re not eligible now either. 

No one in their eighties should be allowed to run unless they are in a coma, because they might come out of it with policies better than Trump's....

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, TheVat said:

This is where we branched off from the thread topic of gun control.  Dim the Derailer.  Followed by MigL the Meanderer.  I haven't worked out droll monikers for the rest of us, but we're all complicit.  We should throw ourselves on the mercy of the moderators.   Maybe a split thread.  Metrics of Fitness to Hold High Office?  

Your quip would be cutting, if the first halve of my post wasn't both accurate and relevant; but since we find ourselves in this half, my objection of the 80+ year olds in political influence, isn't based on competence it's based on the fact that it's not their world, anymore.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Your quip would be cutting, if the first halve of my post wasn't both accurate and relevant; but since we find ourselves in this half, my objection of the 80+ year olds in political influence, isn't based on competence it's based on the fact that it's not their world, anymore.

There is truth in this. When the 20-30 somethings sound like aliens, it's probably time to get out of the way.

Edited February 10 by StringJunky

[TheVat]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

my objection of the 80+ year olds in political influence, isn't based on competence it's based on the fact that it's not their world, anymore

 

I feel there is a sense in which it's true and one in which it isn't.  True in that society may have moved on from a mindset that was common when they were young.  But some old folks grow and change with the times and remain very much in the world right up until they step out.  So it feels ageist to assume that the elderly have fallen behind and lost touch with the changes going on.  Some do, but some have a wisdom that is informed by their long perspective across many decades and roll with the changes.

(no cut intended with "derailer" btw - I have enjoyed your "derailment" and followed right off the rails myself)

[Sensei]

On 2/9/2024 at 12:32 AM, zapatos said:

William Taft reportedly weighed 330 poumds.

In the past, weight was related to material status. Only rich people were fat.

[MigL]

On 2/9/2024 at 10:20 AM, zapatos said:

Thus to eliminate someone from consideration for a job simply due to age is bigotry.

As JC pointed out, there is already age discrimination, as people under a certain age are not permitted to be President.
Yet those youngsters are permitted in the armed forces, of which, the President is the Commander in Chief.
As Rambo said about wars
"Old men start it. Young men fight it. Nobody wins, everybody in the middle dies ... and nobody tells the truth."

And if age discrimination is 'bigotry', what do you call it when a person who is an American citizen, has served in the armed forces, and paid taxes for 40 years, cannot be President because he/she was born in another country ?

I think most of us dismiss the fact that J Biden is past his 'best before date' because the orange hair alternative is too stressful to contemplate, but a President needs to remember briefings so that decisions can be made taking them into account; in the case of a national emergency he needs to be in AF1 and alert for possibly 48 hours without sleep ( or an elderly afternoon nap ).

I don't suggest age 65 limits out of malice ( I turned 65 on Jan 19th ), but I do realize the limitations of people over that age.
( interns won't even look at you, never mind moistening your cigar. I know, that's in bad taste ... )

Even Bruce 'Die-Hard' Willis knew when to call it quits, and all he had to do was remember lines, and not look at the camera.

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Even Bruce 'Die-Hard' Willis knew when to call it quits, and all he had to do was remember lines, and not look at the camera.

Willis was diagnosed a couple years ago with frontotemporal dementia, the most common form of early-onset dementia, and his cognitive issues are not typical of 67 year olds generally.  In point of fact, he was already suffering from advancing aphasia a few years before the FTD diagnosis, and did not know when to call it quits for a couple years, signing on to various productions and turning in mediocre performances where he needed constant assistance and special allowances to make it through each day.  Only his reputation as a star, and box office power, allowed him to turn in those sad performances.

Which goes to a point I wanted to make earlier: people with cognitive deficits do not self-assess well.  Which is why I would support cognitive tests for high office, for any age range.  I was only objecting to specific age criteria.  The world has plenty of people retaining their wits and intellectual activity into their 90s, like Noam Chomsky, John Wheeler, Freeman Dyson, James Lovelock, Bertrand Russell and Charles Townes (who was still working in physics at age 98).  These SuperAgers as they are now called illustrate the importance of letting people work if they have the desire to and can contribute.

[StringJunky]

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

 

I feel there is a sense in which it's true and one in which it isn't.  True in that society may have moved on from a mindset that was common when they were young.  But some old folks grow and change with the times and remain very much in the world right up until they step out.  So it feels ageist to assume that the elderly have fallen behind and lost touch with the changes going on.  Some do, but some have a wisdom that is informed by their long perspective across many decades and roll with the changes.

(no cut intended with "derailer" btw - I have enjoyed your "derailment" and followed right off the rails myself)

The operative word is some, like us here, but in my everyday life it is very much the exception, it seems. I think most people don't shift beyond a certain age. I think part of it is due to hubris and boredom in thinking they've "Seen it all" and therefore switch off to new concepts. If you don't look for new things, the world will appear to stay the same.

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

 

I feel there is a sense in which it's true and one in which it isn't.  True in that society may have moved on from a mindset that was common when they were young.  But some old folks grow and change with the times and remain very much in the world right up until they step out.  So it feels ageist to assume that the elderly have fallen behind and lost touch with the changes going on.  Some do, but some have a wisdom that is informed by their long perspective across many decades and roll with the changes.

It's more about consequence than competence, I'm fine with tapping the mine of wisdom; but mindful of the fact that they're human and so their personal outlook would be heavily biased towards them existing in the very short term, relatively.

And passing down his fiefdom to HIS children, the success of society would be a lucky coincidence.

[MigL]

18 hours ago, TheVat said:

The world has plenty of people retaining their wits and intellectual activity into their 90s

True.
But you have to admit the probability of a person 'losing their wits' in the 4 years of a Presidential term increase almost exponentially between the ages of 70 and 90.

I'm not sure how it works in the US, but in Canada, once a person reaches 80 years of age, he/she is subject to yearly driving competence tests. You could call it age discrimination, but it is a recognition of our general  human limitations.
Similarly you could require politivians over a certain age to be tested for physical and mental condition, but that could be easily manipulated by a President who appoints his physician.
( remember the 'glowing' assessment D Trump got, while being overweight, and obviously crazy ? )

That is why I would prefer age limits on essential politicians.

The US is not the only one with problems.
In Canada we have senators appointed for life, and some are in their 90s, who spend most of their time sleeping, yet they can hold up, or veto, legislation passed by elected and accountable members of Parliament.
Our Senate is called the 'house of somber second thought'.
In their dreams, maybe.

[TheVat]

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

But you have to admit the probability of a person 'losing their wits' in the 4 years of a Presidential term increase almost exponentially between the ages of 70 and 90.

Not sure what almost exponentially is, but maybe not important.

I think there's a basic problem in using statistics to hire individuals for a job.   This problem is clearer when the statistics are used on women or various ethnic groups.  On average, Latinos are 1.45 times as likely to drop out of college in the first two years.  So we shouldn't admit them to our school.  On average, women are three times more likely to miss workdays due to childcare duties.  So we better not hire any women.  Etc.

Age limits seems to get into similar territory.  I see no reason some independent testing office can't be established, for annual competency tests of public officials.  And, who knows, if the cream sometimes rises to the top, someday we might get a Chomsky or Bertrand Russell president, ushering in an era of great progress in their 90s.  (also biological age is kind of a moving target, given what we are learning about nutrition and health)

 

[MigL]

That may be.
But a Chomsky or Russel would probably do a good job before age 65 also.

I hope it won't be much of a problem, as J Biden will surround himself with sensible and capable people, even if he himself, is incapacitated.
But the other buffoon, who surrounds himself with a*s-kissers, would be a major problem.

[npts2020]

On 2/8/2024 at 9:01 AM, dimreepr said:

80+ year olds should NOT!!! have a political opinion, let alone a finger on the trigger...

Except I know a fair number of 80 year olds who would make far better Presidents than most much younger possibilities. Sessions like the Prime Minister's questioning at Parliament in Britain would go a long way toward showing whether a leader is mentally competent but with bought and paid for incumbency where it benefits more than a few to keep mental decline under wraps, this kind of thing is highly unlikely.

[dimreepr]

10 hours ago, npts2020 said:

Except I know a fair number of 80 year olds who would make far better Presidents than most much younger possibilities. Sessions like the Prime Minister's questioning at Parliament in Britain would go a long way toward showing whether a leader is mentally competent but with bought and paid for incumbency where it benefits more than a few to keep mental decline under wraps, this kind of thing is highly unlikely.

Like I said from the start of this thread, my objection is not based on competence, which I went on to explain in this thread; please read...

[MigL]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Like I said from the start of this thread, my objection is not based on competence, which I went on to explain in this thread; please read...

Due to lower birth rates and people living longer, there are more and more  old people than young.
You would deny these people representation in their government based simply on age, not competence ?

Might as well simply exterminate them, as they are in the way of an evolving society.
Remember, you hope to get to that age too, someday 🙂 .

My arguments for age limits are based on the average competence ( if one can define such a thing ) of 70-90 year olds: not on their opinions of how society should evolve, as, I assume, if they are competent they'll have valid opinions.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

Due to lower birth rates and people living longer, there are more and more  old people than young.
You would deny these people representation in their government based simply on age, not competence ?

Might as well simply exterminate them, as they are in the way of an evolving society.
Remember, you hope to get to that age too, someday 🙂 .

eXTERMINATE, seems a little over the top; but don't forget who has to crop the fields... 😉 

[J.C.MacSwell]

It's extremely problematic getting those past their prime to give up driving their vehicles, even at ages that the majority should not be behind the wheel. Yet here we have very arguably the most important job in the World being left to either a late seventies Trump, who at least has to compete for his ticket, or an eighty year old incumbent who seems to be getting his ticket uncontested.

Not the greatest democratic process.

The checks and balances seem a little off balance.

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

incumbent who seems to be getting his ticket uncontested.

Is this somehow unusual?