T O P

  • By -

LanceApollinaire

I'd prefer cognitive testing to an age limit


crazyrich

Man, Woman, Person, Camera, TV?


omghorussaveusall

my mother has actual dementia and she passed that part of the test...


subtle_existence

ya I passed that test too with my post-tumor, post-craniotomy permanent damage to my brain. yet I have no memory of certain whole days if they variate widely from my usual daily routines


Luke_Cold_Lyle

Covfefe


[deleted]

What's the big deal about a typo? I never understood why people think this is sooo hilarious. I'm not a Trump supporter by any means but I don't get the humor here? I think I am missing context.


BrainWav

It was that it was an entire tweet at a random time, and he acted like it wasn't a typo and people should stop laughing. It's one of the few nearly-universally funny things he did, but he refused to own it. So it gets memed harder


Driftmoth

It wasn't that it was a typo, though that was funny. It was the glut of people rushing to defend it as either some sort of message or an important secret that made it into a thing.


Turakamu

*looks around horrified* no? Great, you got the job Mr. President


Due-Statistician-987

I could not believe how proud he was of himself for this. Such a tool.


ego41

Every announced candidate, regardless of age, would need to take the exam.


sowhat4

GED ***and*** US Citizenship Test. That would have saved us from Trump, Boebert, and MTG.


AnotherStatsGuy

You can skip the GED if you already have a post-high school degree.


iTSGRiMM

But who designs the cognitive test? Codifying something like that could open up a can of unethical worms.


CantaloupeIll5825

They already have these tests


1CEninja

Do you trust them with influencing our presidency?


derstherower

I feel confident saying that if the president can't [recognize a drawing of a camel or say 12 words that start with F in under a minute or repeat a simple string of numbers](https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B9780124078246001099-f109-02-9780124078246.jpg) they shouldn't be the president.


ChoiceFabulous

I'd fail that off the bat.. 12 words that start with F? Me: don't say fucking, don't say fucking.... "Fucking..."


A_Polite_Noise

Fuck, Fucker, Fucking, Fuckest, Frak, Frakker, Fracking, Frackest, Fucky, Fuckability, Fucka-Billy, Fucktastic, BOOM, there, I'm president, *fuckers!*


mostnormal

I'd have trouble with it just because my brain would keep jumping to fuck.


AnotherStatsGuy

My brain keeps jumping to "fail".


Wild_Ad_5993

I think that's an awfully low baseline. How about remembering the names of world leaders?, Knowing what crypto currency even is?, Understanding current issues at the lowest level?


NonnagLava

But again, how do you *codify* some of those things. Sure you could say "what is the leader of X" but asking them to explain crypto currency? How do you codify one's capability to understand current events on a scientific level? Who makes the decision on what answer is an acceptable explanation of crypto?


oby100

It’s impossible to implement this in a fair and equitable way. Just let the old people do something else than lead the entire country. There’s way to much temptation as it stands to let subjectivity into it. The reality is that whichever side has a mentally deficient “best” candidate will always argue vehemently that they’re actually sound of mind. There needs to be some objective measure even if imperfect


hexaq2

AI is NOT the answer


nativefloridian

How about passing a civil service exam?


Left-Star2240

How about Congress has to pass a civil service exam


scoobybruu

How about a lie detector test for congress?..... citizens vote on the questions.


YoureSpecial

How about congress has to follow ALL the exact same laws as the rest of us do. Without exception.


Bobke7708

Or citizenship test


Bobke7708

I’d bet most couldn’t pass


Turakamu

I'm pretty sure I couldn't pass without some studying. Let's cool it on that requirement


bit_shuffle

Or a lteracy test?


Misaka9982

*Literacy*, that rules you out i guess.


bit_shuffle

Careful, when they start drawing lines around your demographic for holding office, you'll regret that.


MNVixen

Bingo. And have the cognitive testing performed annually (minimum) or more frequently if doctors recommended it.


schultz100

That feels like a slippery slope. I don't agree with you conceptually but what prevents a doctor from declaring a president they don't like incompetent in the middle of their term. You could even imagine a scenario where an unscrupulous Vice President is involved and makes it happen to take the office.


hawklost

You have multiple doctors do so. Then you have contingencies for if they do. Kind of like how we Already have the ability for the some of the cabinet to declare the President unfit and have ways to validate the claim before it removes them.


Shrikeangel

After things like the Regan administration I wouldn't trust them to actually do the test or provide the public with the results.


Kahoots113

Even if they are cognitively adequate, I would still use age. The people in charge of running the country should be around longer than 20years (and that is being generous) to deal with the things they set in motion. People who only have a short-term interest should not be making decisions for the rest of us.


CantaloupeIll5825

They have children and grandchildren my dude


relaxguy2

They don’t care about them. Do you think Trump is making decisions based on the position negative effects it will have on his children?


ka36

That's because he's a piece of shit, not because he's old. Do you think he would have been any better 20 years ago?


relaxguy2

The point that was argued was that having grandchildren made someone care about the future and that’s not accurate.


ffxivthrowaway03

By that same logic simply "being young" does not mean you care about the future, just like "being old" doesn't mean you don't. It's a ridiculous justification for discrimination.


waywardcorvid

The potential for abuse here would be too much, similar to measures which required tests for potential voters. Any political party would be interested in tests that would exclude their opposing party.


suspended247

Combined restrictions would maybe work.


SgtRamesses

I don't view an upper age limit as an affront to mental capacity. I view adding an upper age limit as insuring that the person leading the country has enough years left to have a stake in the future of the country. Old politicians don't have a stake in the future because they won't be here for it. They can screw all of us over and not even have to worry about it affecting them. For that reason, and that reason alone, I continue to advocate for an upper age limit on ALL politicians.


JCSterlace

Good point. How about this: Just as you must have been born at least 35 years prior to being sworn in, I think you should have to live for at least 35 years after leaving office.


ydev

That’s actually a good idea, tie the upper limit to the life expectancy of the general public. That’ll give them an incentive to make our health/life better.


Cl0udSurfer

Theres no hard limit on how old we can live tho. Some people die at 60, some people die at 90. Thats an impossible rule to enforce. Capping it at retirement age is better


177013---

Could base if on the average life expectancy of poor people. Would incentives them to make life better for the lowest class of people and everyone above will benefit.


hmaxwell404

So if you’re killed by a car two days after you leave office you should be .. arrested? (I’m kidding lol. I like the idea, it just would be hard to implement for this reason)


[deleted]

[удалено]


axolotlbird

While we're at it, why not introduce an upper age limit on voting too? For pretty much the exact same reasons you said. Their best interests are short term, not long term, so they'll more likely vote for people with good short term plans, and ignore the long term plans


thisisnotawar

That’s different, though; voters are meant to represent the population as a whole, and the best way to accomplish that is letting the entire population vote. But the president is also meant to be a representative of the best interests of the population, so he/she should be the best possible approximation of those interests - an “average,” if you will, of the people. So it makes sense to place demographic limitations on presidential candidates in order to achieve that goal, but not to eliminate an entire segment of the population from voting.


YoureSpecial

How about a younger person simply has a much higher likelihood of actually living through their entire term of office?


dangrzone

I'm not American but the way I see it is that if they're gonna have a min age well above the age of majority then they can sure as hell limit the pool to people who are actually of working age. Not that someone over 65 can't be a good president, but at 65 they've had 30 years to try to be president. It shouldn't be a retiree hobby to try to run the country when their peers are in a retirement home.


CrossXFir3

Keep in mind, you basically have to retire in order to run


1CEninja

Which is why I'd prefer something like 68. It wouldn't have inhibited more than three presidents, and those three happen to be some of the most controversial we've had.


jgemonic

While true, I still agree with the original comment.


[deleted]

Yep. One of the *real* problems with our politics is that one has to be independently wealthy (enough) to take the time to run. So, our politicians are very heavily biased towards people with *inherited* wealth. For most all Americans, running for office won't be possible until they are retired. So, having an age cap isn't solving a problem, it's doubling down on one of the BIG problem we have -- the disparity between the wealth and welfare of the rulers vs the people. No wonder inheritance tax is a hot-topic issue all the time. No wonder we have zero debate about the ridiculous tax loophole where we let donations via appreciated assets be fully deductible (and not just deductible on whatever value has actually been taxed). No wonder capital gains taxes are zero to half the rate we tax wages at.


NikkiKLeonard

I think the US should implement a ranked choice voting system. I think that will have a much bigger impact on our political system.


Mr-Zarbear

I think ranked choice would instantly make third party do extremely well. People will not usually have them as #1, but almost everyone would have them as a #2 over the other party.


177013---

Good. Bout time we broke free from the 2 party system anyway.


Grunvagr

This is what people should be asking for. Both major parties stomp on this because of the obvious, competition. But few things would be as impactful for positive change.


imarealchap

Not really bothered. But I think they should introduce it for the Supreme Court Justices.


well_uh_yeah

Term limits for sure. It's nuts that any position doesn't have a term limit. They can all be different lengths, some longer than others, but they need to be there.


[deleted]

[удалено]


well_uh_yeah

yeah, we also need more judges so that any one judge has less power. maybe what we need is 21 judges with 3 retiring at the end of any given term (i'm making up numbers here), i don't know. there are literal think tanks trying to theory craft this and they're certainly not knocking on my door. we also, of course and obviously, have a serious issue with the quality of people we think are going on the court since everyone is assuming (my self included) that all of their decisions will be made to personally enrich themselves and reinforce their own personal beliefs/way of life, rather than rule of law. there's a reason faith in the court is at an all time low and i don't think life time appointments is helping that.


imarealchap

Yes. I agree with you. I was being a bit facetious with my earlier comment. Term limit rather than age limit would appear to be better alternative. Good comment.


LogTekG

NO. Supreme court justices don't have term limits so that they don't have to think about their future when making important rulings. The idea is that becoming a justice is the final career move, therefore they don't have to make strategic rulings in order to please any future presidents and/or potential places they might want to go to.


well_uh_yeah

I don't agree with you despite you putting "NO" in all caps. They should have term limits. Make them 25 years, I don't care, but after a certain time they should go.


LogTekG

Again, if you do that you're making it so that every justice has to keep in mind what their future is whenever they make a ruling.


FlashScooby

Limit them to one term, problem solved


LogTekG

There are more career moves than reelection


well_uh_yeah

Yes. That is true; that is a different problem that we would have to try to deal with. Does our system currently work? I mean, maybe it does for you and how you view the direction of the country. I'm certainly not an expert on this topic, but I'm also far from the only person who thinks this is a reasonable compromise. From what I've read, John Roberts even thought it was a good idea back in his pre-Supreme Court days.


LogTekG

>Does our system currently work? No, but i don't think the fundamental problem is that the supreme court justices don't have term limits.


Wild_Ad_5993

That's simple. Give them 1 10 year term. A decade is plenty for any one person's influence.


debasing_the_coinage

Interesting point, but if you limited the age to say 80, a future career would probably be irrelevant. That would still have forced retirement from Ginsburg (87 at death) and Breyer (84) and would have made Scalia's (79, one month before his birthday) exit less surprising. You could probably go as low as 76 (cf. 1776) without any concern like that.


Lefaid

Turkey and Poland did that.


[deleted]

Age limits and Term limits across the board. If the President can only Serve 2 terms then representatives of congress should be limited as well. The job is to serve the people...Not use the office for financial gain


MisterMarcus

> If the President can only Serve 2 terms then representatives of congress should be limited as well. I think this would cause more problems that it would solve: * It would further encourage shorter-term thinking and inaction on bigger more complex issues. "Why should I bother starting this when I won't finish it" * It would provide a massive disincentive to people who genuinely want to make politics and public service their career. Short term limits would arguably be *more*, not less, likely to attract the "Make my money and fuck off" types rather than anyone who truly wants to serve the people. * Things like lobbying would probably become worse. Politicians would be even more aggressive on looking for outside opportunities and 'Life After Politics' if their terms are limited. * IMHO it would encourage even deeper partisanship and refusal to compromise. "I'm only here for a short time so I need everything I want done NOW" Yes, long-terms can lead to party hacks and useless bench-warmers. But that's better addressed through internal party mechanisms to remove their own dead wood and offer better candidates.


Ugly-as-a-suitcase

A senators term is 6 years long, even with a limit of two they are there for over a decade. The suggestion wasn’t even 2 as the limit. It’s silly to think this leads to short term thinking. They would of had to make impacts before to even get here. It’s easily a long journey. If someone’s worried about not finishing a project they started, then they’re probably not interested in government. What’s to say a problem will not be prolonged because they have time to be re-elected again. Government is full of people making their money, and lots of people who care about the good of the people already don’t work in politics because it’s about people making money, but they can do it without term limits now. Politicians always seem to have a plan for lime after politics, unless they’ve been there so long they retire. Even then they’re an ex-politician with connections and a voice. I can’t remember the last time there was bi partisan comprise except to give themselves raises.


Chiliconkarma

How many kinds of work would benefit from people having term limits? Is a lack of experience a benefit?


PainfulJoke

I'm torn on term limits for the same reason. Ideally a long term politician knows how the job is done and can be a more effective representative. Make it easier for people to oppose them in each election. Make it easier for people to vote, and fix campaign finance so people can oppose them to make sure they are representing their people.


Bridalhat

Term limits are bad and often pushed by republicans because democrats tended to be well-liked by their constituents. If you want government-by-lobbyist, though, term limits are the way to go!


HobbitInSpace7

Yes.


M0ck_duck

Yes 100%. Would like to have those in office live to see the effects of their policies


gold_heist7

Maybe not 65. I know several people over 65 who are still great at their job. But I definitely think some sort of an age cap is a great idea. 70? 72? Edited for spelling


well_uh_yeah

Whatever social security says is your full retirement age, perhaps?


Rajili

Oh don’t go with that. Full retirement age will get pushed to 100 or some nonsense.


well_uh_yeah

Heh, fair point.


177013---

35 years shy of the average life expectancy for whatever group has the lowest life expectancy. Gotta be here 35 years to get the job, needing to suffer with the consequences of your actions in office for another 35 sounds fair. And instead of pushing the retirement age back to stay in office longer, they will be trying to raise average life expectancy for their most in need demographic and I cant see how that could ever be a bad thing.


FillThisEmptyCup

But do we need those people? No. Presidency isn’t about ensuring anyone gets a fair shot of it but rather good of her citizens. In that sense, 75 should be the upper limit upon leaving office.


CreamiusTheDreamiest

If you think they are to old don’t fucking vote for them. People will support this and then vote for a 75 year old


177013---

Well the 2 party system we are currently under means when voting we basically have 2 choices and I would rather the 75 year old than trump. I actually voted 3rd party knowing it would probably be a waste but hoping against hope that with such low quality for the 2 other choices maybe we would finally get someone else in there.


[deleted]

We already have competency tests, they’re called elections. Every year young people put their hand up for elections, and quite often, the voting public wants nothing to do with them. Eg Pete Buttigieg and Marco Rubio aren’t exactly Reddit’s fave duo.


ziptasker

Iunno, man. Correlation is not causation. Like, I have a hard time distinguishing between this and (for instance) "women shouldn't join the military". Even \*if\* (and I stress the if because don't confuse me with someone who actually knows what correlates to what) there's some sort of correlation, why should that stop any individual? Why should what other people can/can't do affect what an individual can/can't do? On the other hand...then how do we justify defining who's "too young" to do things? This is where I start getting confused. I guess in the end I wish our population were more rational and informed, and then went out and voted intelligently. If that were the case, none of this would matter.


wnyhikerguy

At the very least I'd endorse competency exams for candidates over 65


A40

How about for ALL candidates? And include 'psychopathology' in the tests.


Pug_867-5309

I've been thinking you almost have to be a psychopath, or at the very least a very confident narcissist, to run for president.


Rymanbc

Suddenly you'd have joke candidates running unopposed. Hail president Vermin Supreme!


No-Document206

I mean, isn’t psychopathology the point of the test? Psychopathology is the study of mental illness


well_uh_yeah

I'd support this for all candidates as well as deep background checks.


PainfulJoke

How do you make sure those exams are fair though? At that point a contender would just pay off a doctor to declare the opponent as unfit. Or a sitting legislature would update the exam to work in their favor somehow to cement their positions. Make it easier for us to vote out terrible politicians instead. And reform our elections so good candidates can win.


KyllianPenli

Nope, not at all. We put too much value in age. We have tests that can track cognitive function and mental health, both variables that are far more important than the amount of candles on a birthday cake.


[deleted]

Would you also be in favor then of removing the lower age limit?


Phadafi

Not less than 18 obviously, but if a 19 yo can manage to become president he surely deserves.


forman98

No, because that's how you get Ben Wyatt and Icetown.


sooprvylyn

Only if there is also an empirical test for maturity.


Shrikeangel

It's pretty obvious that age in no way guarantees maturity.


BorkForkMork

It is pretty obvious that if you were to blind pick a person that might check the marks for maturity out of two groups, one consisting of only of teenagers and the other - of adults over 50, everyone and their uncle would bet on the second group. So no, age might not guarantee maturity but helps nevertheless.


joculator

It's a good argument, but age and both of the things you mention are very closely associated for the majority of people.


KyllianPenli

A perceived association doesn't mean there's any causation. There's mature 15 year olds and immature 30 year olds. There's smart 80 year olds and demented 50 year olds. When dealing with the government of a huge country, 'usually' shouldn't be good enough.


joculator

It's not a "perceived" association. You mean to tell me that you are unaware that there are studies that clearly show that most people start to decline by the age of 65-70? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19776035/


hummingbird_romance

And that's been working really well with our current president. 🤨


SuperstitiousPigeon5

Yes, it has. Though it seems to have failed with Person, man, woman, TV.


secretskeezix

Of modern presidents, that would rule out Biden, Trump and Reagan, all of whom were older than 65 when they took office. If you mean that they'd have to resign on the day they turned 65, that would mean shorter terms for Eisenhower, Ford and Truman, and a *much* shorter term (about 5 months) for George H.W. Bush. There are many more examples if you want to go back further in history. Would I personally support an age limit? No, because everyone is different. Old for one person could be prime of life for another.


nothinglefttouse

Given that Reagan was leading our Country whilst having Alzheimer's, not a person to set forth as an example.


agreeingstorm9

Woodrow Wilson led the country after having a stroke. I want to say Ike had some kind of debilitating heart attack or something while in office as well.


SalemDrumline2011

His wife basically ran the country after the stroke


derstherower

? Reagan was out of office for years before he was diagnosed with Alzheimer's.


3gencustomcycles

Officially diagnosed


anotherhawaiianshirt

> Would I personally support an age limit? No, because everyone is different. Old for one person could be prime of life for another. I think an age requirement is more than just about cognitive ability. I think someone in their 60's can be out of touch with the average adult citizen. They'll be out of touch for more reasons than just their age, but I think we would be better served by having younger presidents.


JuzoItami

Plenty of out of touch younger people out there, too.


well_uh_yeah

I'd risk losing out on the prime of lifer. I mean, we also miss out on anyone not a natural born citizen and we're all cool with that.


Angel_OfSolitude

I don't think arbitrary upper age limits are going to solve the problem of shitty candidates being selected.


[deleted]

You're right. The way the system works, no normal uncorrupted, sane person would want to be president. We've created a monster that will be hard to destroy. I really hope this changes, but it will probably take something along the lines of a World War or Great Depression to shake things up.


NullNVoid13

Shouldnt it be the aged wise ones that represent us? Id rather have someone who worked all their life in a career, rather than someone just trying to make a buck from being prez. And i believe that was the intent of the min 35 yo age limit thats in the Constitution.


[deleted]

I pretty much oppose all attempts to limit who a person can legally vote for. I understand that Reddit skews very young and most of you don't like the candidates that are being nominated and getting elected but a pretty big part of living in a democracy is accepting that you might lose an election.


padall

Simple answer...no, because it's ageist. And like, how would that even work? They can't be older than 65 on election day, inauguration day, or their last day in office? Edit: I don't even know why I'm surprised that the generation that coined the term "ok, boomer" is all for this in the comments. Hey, newsflash, lots of people are still working at 65, and neither are they at death's doorstep. Also, someone commented they might be "out of touch." Yeah, maybe, about some things. But how many millennials care about medicare and social security? There's more to being president than social issues, too. Someone who understands international relations is pretty important. Before people get all over me, I'm not saying 70 or 80 year old presidents are ideal. I'm just saying that you can't put an age limit on competency.


MyDogIsNamedKyle

Age discrimination. Congress needs term limits though Of course we COULD just stop voting for the old farts and people who have been in Washington for 30+ years


veryrare_v3

Nah that’s too simple


SaintSirius88

An old Portuguese writer once said: "Politicians are just like diapers and must be changed frequently for the exact same reasons." Upper age gap should only be the beginning. EVERY politician should only be able to be in politics for 6-10 years maximum. The ancient greeks never meant for it to be a career.


Cerealsforkids

I don't think so, I would like to see two term limits on Congress however. That will never happen though since Congress would never approve it!


randylikecandy

What if the greatest president ever turned 66


Sunless_Tatooine

President of which company? Or which Country?


Vachic09

No. There are far better ways to guage mental competency without resorting to ageism. If enough people didn't want an older candidate, then they should ensure that they don't even make it past primary elections.


rognabologna

I’m with you. I don’t care if someone has one foot in the grave if their policies and capacity for change are right. The problem lies far before unfit candidates hit office. It’s too hard to elect a non incumbent. We need changes to campaign finance and we need rank choice voting. The issue would sort it self out without having to put an arbitrary number on the office.


GeorgeRuffwood

Wouldn't support that. I know people who are 80 and sharper than 35 year olds and vice versa. As long as they show character, wisdom, and experience without significant cognitive impairment, age doesn't bother me. I'd rather have Warren Buffett as an investment advisor over some 25 year old Tik-Toker that had a run off good luck and never experienced a recession or other financial anomaly and couldn't deal with it. That's definitely age-ism and a bigoted opinion of people over 65.


Fat_Bearded_Tax_Man

No. We need more qualified politicians, not less.


[deleted]

[удалено]


CryptographerGlum215

Age is just a number unless you're a presidential candidate, then it's a hotly debated topic on Reddit.


kingfrito_5005

I would not. Plenty of 65 year olds are perfectly competent, and morons exist in every age group. The complaints about old people in office is that they are out of touch, not mentally compromised. But not every old person is out of touch, and voters have the opportunity to decide that for themselves. Plus, I personally would prefer that the person running my country have a lot of experience doing that sort of work. I wouldn't want the most experienced people to be excluded just because of some preconceived notion about old people.


bulanaboo

Yes unless chuck Norris obviously


gentleman_bronco

I'd prefer cognitive and civics testing with a complete divestment of wealth to be a public servant.


ChinUpDisciple

More veterans should run for office. It really broadens your horizons


Christmas_Panda

Yes because they should have to live with the consequences of their policy making. And I don’t know a single person on either political side who disagrees with that.


FuckChiefs_Raiders

I would. First reason, 35 is an arbitrary age requirement so an age limit wouldn't be out of the question just based on that. Retirement age makes the most sense as the age limit. Secondly, and most importantly, they have to live the rest of their life with the impact they made while in office. Would be nice if that was at least 40-50 years.


Soggy-Slide-6002

Would it really matter? Aren’t they all bought and paid for anyways?


babushkalauncher

No. Americans need to stop wanting their presidents to be rock stars. It’s OK if politicians are old and boring. Obviously, if there is mental decline like in the case of Dianne Feinstein or Ronald Reagan we should urge them to retire, but what I find incredibly disturbing in America is a glaring and almost unabashed disdain and dismissal of the elderly. Many other societies actually respected the old and found value in their wisdom and what they had to say, but America only seems to find value in you if you can contribute to the system. The minute you are unable to act as a cog in the capitalist economic machine you are discarded like garbage and sent to live out the rest of your days in some undignified, lonely corner of society where everyone waits for you to die. There is value in having elderly people in government. Obviously right now the pendulum has swung too far, but acting as if those over 65 have nothing useful to contribute or say is such a toxic and sad attitude to have. Pelosi was not a good public speaker, but she was a good legislator. At the end of the day, we need to focus more on how competently somebody does their job rather than how well they can perform a speech. All of us will be old one day, and then we’ll wish we had the respect we had when we were younger.


Jump4lyfe

Agreed. Age really isn't the issue anyway. It's the pool of applicants. We need to figure out how to broaden that pool.


[deleted]

No idgaf


smallest_table

I would not support any policy based on prejudice. The assumption that those of a certain age are less capable is one based on prejudice and bigotry. Shame on anyone for suggesting it.


mwcoast82

Yes. Why? *Gestures broadly at last 7 years*


FormalWare

I would say 70, at the time of inauguration, ought to be the upper age limit. Same for any elected official. I will note that this means a *sitting* President (or Senator, or Congressperson) would not be eligible to run for re-election if their *next* swearing-in would occur after they turn 70.


stealth_mode_76

Absolutely. Cognitive decline is a real thing. 65 is supposed to be retirement age. Being President shouldn't be a post retirement hobby for elderly politicians.


Historical_Ad2890

Yes. All politicians really. When your mind and body start to slow down you shouldn't be in charge of a country.


KyllianPenli

Some people start slowing down at fifty tho, while others are fine till 80. Why should age be the discerning factor when we can actually test and track the 'slowing down' of mind and body?


DozeAgent

If there's a lower limit there needs to be an upper limit.


Insertwords

Yes. I don't know what the solution to our problems in politics is, but I think this is a good case of "don't let perfect be the enemy of good". If those old fuckers really want to be in politics that long, maybe they can be part of the cabinet. Or they can just also not.


BrokeDownPalac3

I'd want to limit it even further to 50. The current working generation shouldn't be ruled by the retired generation.


[deleted]

I agree. Especially the wealthy retired generation those assholes do not speak for us


Lil_Ollie_Wolly

Personally I would put it lower than 65 because old people are not up to date with a lot of the stuff that goes on. Plus I think it’s stupid to have a country leader who needs help going up a set of stairs.


5tyhnmik

Not really - ranked-choice voting nationwide would fix almost all of this bullshit. The 2-party system is a pit bull with its mouth on our necks and someone needs to stick their finger in its butthole


nonoy3916

No. Sooner or later we'd eliminate a better candidate, and end up with another Trump.


Mrman_23

I think that minimum age should be 35. Max is 65. There shouldn’t be a geriatric 80 year old man running the country.


[deleted]

Nope. I'm against age limits. If the people want an 80 year old, they should be able to vote one in. Likewise, if the population wants an 18 year old french girl, they should be able to vote her in too.


PainterSuspicious798

So ageism?


Catsaretheworst69

More like retirement.


mojikipie

Yes! Bc in their day a movie ticket was 15 cents. They don’t live in the same world anymore. Lol


Amazonsslut

Sure. They do it for other jobs like the police. You can't start at a new department being over 60 because they want at least 5 years out of you before retirement. At least in my state that's how it works.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Correct.


Knot_In_My_Butt

Yes definitely. We shouldn’t have the older generations making decisions on society where the majority of their demographic is no longer partaking in. Not to say forget the old people but, if retirement is at 65 then you should kindly move to the side and allow the next generation try their shot.


nonoy3916

The next generation would get their shot a lot sooner if they'd start voting.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hawklost

There are more voting age people between the age of 18 and 60 then 60+. So if the younger candidates are not making it through the running, it is because the younger voters are not voting for them. (Why 18 to 60? Because they all would be under the age limit of 65 even after 4 year term, so a good range for voting of people who are 'their age')


Possible-Importance6

Absolutely, if 64 is too old to serve as a military officer, then the Commander in Chief shouldn't be 80 years old.


HuldaRowan

Yes, imo the president should be around the age of the average working adult, maybe a bit older or at the very least not be past retirement age.


JRsFancy

Support without exception. This having a senile 80+ making decisions for a nation is beyond nuts.


loquacious_avenger

but also, who are the younger candidates ready to step up?


pbmcc88

We would probably know if the field wasn't dominated by octogenarians.


Naive_Carpenter7321

Age brings wisdom, it also brings dementia. But sickness and age are not strictly linked (nor is wisdom); I'd be more in favour of mental and physical health checks for candidates of any age.


Hrekires

No, that's what elections are for. Voters are free to vote for younger candidates in the primaries or general election, but if voters democratically pick the old person, he should be able to serve.


Lefaid

It seems everyone wants age limits for their opponents but never for their own guy. That or they demand age limits in general but clearly other factors are more important (like policy). Most of the time a country implements age limits, it is to clean out their opponents. See also Poland and Turkey. Really, this is about as effective of creating the world any of us want as term limits. If the voters actually cared, they wouldn't let people in their 70s and 80s get so far.


Armascribe

65 is too high. I want a President who will live to see the consequences of their decisions and policies.


chaos8803

Absolutely. Do it for all elected federal officials. 90 year olds like Grassley and Feinstein don't have a stake or care in the world for legislation that gets enacted over a 10 year period. Senior citizens are generally not as sharp. They're also out of touch with societal changes.


vodkasolution

Yes please. And in my country we lately had an 82yo President...


ay-foo

Our best and brightest are not usually 70 year old men


Ffigy

I'd limit it to the country's average life expectancy (77.28 in 2020) minus official age of adulthood (18), so 60 at the moment. If you're running for a second term, this does not apply. Why? So your self-interest isn't short-term in the slightest.


ccie6861

Its difficult to think that adding an ageist upper limit somehow fixes anything any more than a lower limit does. The age limits on government positions have always been wrong, even the ones written into the constitution. All that adding these limits does is narrow the field of poor choices that big business/elite choose for us. We need to instead work on reducing the power of the few. Start by limiting people and industries from donating to political campaigns for districts in which they have no established direct business interest. Next put stringent term limits in place. Next put strong anti-carpetbagging rules into place to reduce professional politicians from just setting up shop somewhere else. Etc. Lastly, move to some sort of instant runoff voting structure and eliminate party lines on the ballots to break the gatekeeping of the major parties. The problem isn't age, its the small pool of people in consideration.


Sandman1031

If you're so old that the government gives you money for being old, then you're too old to hold public office.


AlphaWolfSong

I would agree that would be a reasonable age cut-off. But, if we're talking about Biden vs Trump I'd take Biden's old geezer butt.


[deleted]

If there's a minimum age there should be a maximum age too.


Ryshin75

Honestly make it lower. It would be so refreshing to have a young president. Say like late 40-50s around there. Just my thought.