politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Wait. You're telling me that people in their late 70s early 80s don't make for great presidents??
No way. 😐
Very much depends on the individual.
No it doesn't. At that age no one should be in a place of high power.
Bernie Sanders on his deathbed still makes a better president than whatever-the-fuck we got now. (As long as he doesn't get a "Fetterman" stroke, even then, the Progressive, hopefully younger, VP can take over)
Joe Biden stepped down knowing he wouldn't be able to service as president due to his health and age.
Bernie Sanders on his deathbed most definitely would not make a better president than Trump because he'd be dying.
What kind of ridiculous logic is that?
I'm glad you don't like Trump I don't like Trump either but replacing him with another old white guy isn't the solution.
I love Bernie. He's a lovable dude. That seems to be the sole reason he keeps getting elected. He's in his eighties, and despite all his lovely words and many, many years in politics, what actual tangible improvements to American life has he actually been instrumental in achieving? Because it looks pretty light on the ground to me. His time has probably passed.
It does though. And increasingly this will change with time such that human ages skew older, so I will remain flexible on that number when it comes to who I think is capable of holding various offices.
I remember a Ted Talk, and this was probably 15 years ago, where the presenter claimed that the first person to live to 200 was alive 'right now'. There was no mention of what kind of person would need to cling to life above all else to be willing to undergo such treatments, and how much wealth and power they could accumulate in that time. I'm sure it'll be fine.
For the parasitic idle rich, they typically set up foundations and the like to shelter their wealth for their descendants. Not sure it will be all that much different in the wealth accumulation. I'm sure there will be many, many broad societal changes if people start living a whole lot longer. No question about that.
Some fare better than others. But anyone in the 70s to 80s is at such a higher risk of some event that takes them out of commission than usual and we have over 60 million people to look at, surely we don't have to settle for people that have a risk of disrupting the office.
It really doesn't at that age. Let the old folks rest, for fuck's sake.
But why though? If someone is still good at the job, there is no reason for them to take up shuffleboard and golf and retire, in my view. Not unless they want to.
Also, I still contend all this pearl-clutching over the number of times someone has been around the sun will not age all that well, ironically.
Somewhere in between wasting away in a retirement home, and running one of the most heavily armed nations on Earth, there's probably a happy medium to keep them occupied if they so desire. I know I wouldn't want to still be working at that age. I can barely tolerate it now.
If there is minimum age limit to become president, then why is there no maximum age limit? This is gerontocracy at best.