• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Age Limit for Prez

What is the cut-off for a President?


  • Total voters
    61
Both jobs are suited to people who aren’t stressed by the responsibilities
I think overly stressed easily is a better way to put it. Stress is part of life, feeling it is normal. Feeling it to a high degree, or higher degree for a given task than most people/average person in that position does is the problem. I don't think being a certain age is the reason for air traffic controllers retiring at that age, but rather likely time in the job, since they generally are going to start working that job at a much younger age, even than we allow to become President. Same is true in most cases for commercial pilots.
 
I think overly stressed easily is a better way to put it. Stress is part of life, feeling it is normal. Feeling it to a high degree, or higher degree for a given task than most people/average person in that position does is the problem. I don't think being a certain age is the reason for air traffic controllers retiring at that age, but rather likely time in the job, since they generally are going to start working that job at a much younger age, even than we allow to become President. Same is true in most cases for commercial pilots.

Nicely put. However, I do think age takes its toll. There is a reason there is nobody over 60 in the top 100 chess players. I don’t think that means nobody should be running for president in their old age or should be barred from doing so, but I think it’s legitimate for them to be questioned about it.
 
If Biden had balls at all he would acknowledge that his POS son had a child out of wedlock and would do right by that grand-daughter.

If Biden had any integrity he would do more for African-Americans rather than push them to the side since he has a NEW minority to kiss up to (The massive invasion he has allowed to occur}.

As to sagacity, he can't see past his next nap.

Oh on self-worth we totally agree. He thinks much more of his worth than he deserves.

As is my current policy this will be the only statement I will make in this thread. Don't like it? Too bad
Let me guess, you don't like Biden, and are still upset with him for beating your guy in 2020 with a rigged election, amirite?
 
Nicely put. However, I do think age takes its toll. There is a reason there is nobody over 60 in the top 100 chess players. I don’t think that means nobody should be running for president in their old age or should be barred from doing so, but I think it’s legitimate for them to be questioned about it.
I don't have an issue with being questioned about it, but it should be done fairly, and in the current political environment, it isn't. That's my biggest issue with this line of thought, is that Biden is given so much shit for his age, 81, but Trump tends to get much less when he is still easily within the same relative age group at 77 when it comes to potential mental impairment as Biden.

There is a larger age gap between my husband and I than there is between Biden and Trump (by a few months, but still), and my husband and I met each other when he was 21 and I was 24 (although I turned 25 a month later). My husband and I tend to be treated as being pretty much "the same age" by most people, so I don't get why a smaller difference between the 2 people running for President would really be an issue only for one of them.

Now, I'd say that age could definitely be a legitimate factor if Biden or Trump were running against someone a decade or more younger than either of them. Especially greater than 15-20 years younger, as that would be reason to feel that person may be better. But I wouldn't consider that the only factor, since I wouldn't vote for Don Jr over Biden either.
 
I picked 75--because I think that puts you right around 84 or so if you go two terms. r

Really, the anxiety about folks at that age having a medical issue that could debilitate them within 4 years is avoidable--so more like national security concerns ;)

People in their 80s should retire and enjoy the fruits of their labors. I applaud those with the passion and stamina to keep going, but let's not put them in charge of the entire country again.

Biden is proving himself capable (even if you despise him) of maintaining the office at his age, and Trump is hoping for the chance to do the same. Won't he be the same age Biden is now by the end of his term if he wins in November? I think that would be about right.

Anyway, I think it would be better if someone with that type of experience was more like a VP or working in an advisory position.

I mean think about it--amazing quarterbacks have played in the NFL for decades--would you want the oldest one out there playing on your team? Or being coach? The risk of injury is very high. That's how I feel about the presidency :)
I dislike codifying either term limits or an age limit. I understand an age minimum, as it insures that the person has a minimum of experience. While a cap would in effect be saying sorry old timer you have just a little too much experience for the job. Medical advances have made 80 the new 60 I've heard more than once. At 77 myself I am happy that I'm no longer dragging welding leads up the steel skeleton of buildings., but mentally I feel as agile as I ever have. As for fear of dying, those odds improve every day of life, but my friends & acquaintances have been dying for over 60 years. It could be said, I know more dead people than living. 🫥 😇
 
No it’s science that your mental faculties start to decline when you get 70.
I don't think there is a rule that after a certain age you mental decline begins. My Dad was sharp as a tack up until his heart gave out at 95 yo.
Smart people get smarter with age, stupid people stay stupid. ;)
 
I’m not sure anyone is disputing that but its certainly better to err on the side of caution to avoid a situation like we are in now
The voting booth is a good way to set an arbitrary age limit. If enough voters agree... then well there it is.
There is enough gerrymandering, voter suppression & purging of voter rolls going on, without setting arbitrary age limits, IMO. ;)
 
I was perfectly happy to vote for candidates from my first voting election in 1996 until 2012. You act like it’s been business as usual but that certainly not the case anymore and you are just perpetuating mediocrity simply because you are unable to comprehend a reality beyond a binary choice
Personal anecdotes rarely make good political arguments.

The reason being we are talking about an entire nation of 335 million people, not individual voters.

The personal experiences of individual voters have little bearing on the political course of the nation. We should all vote, of course. The system is designed to utilize that. But what happens to the nation is rarely a reflection of one person's view.

It is correct that this election is unique and not a simple continuation of politics from decades ago. We are facing a choice between a very seasoned veteran of politics and an old newcomer on the seen who is seen as a departure from old school politics. Yes, they are both old. Like it or not, these are our choices. It is up to the voters to pick one,

If we don't like these choices we need to act locally to change the issues. It is logical that the main issue is money. Money drives everything. Big money plays an outsized part of it. Our government is legally corrupt by the influence of big money. We have the best government money can buy. We can change that over time by making corruption the number one issue. We should all get involved with local government and make non-binding resolutions supporting the American Anti-Corruption Act.

This will do nothing in the immediate sense. It is delayed gratification (a forgotten power.) The more of us who do this, and the more local governments which recognize that corruption is wrong, the closer we get to getting better candidate choices. Here's how that works: We need to make this anti-corruption thing a 'trending issue.' When enough local governments do this it will be come a news item. Then it can snowball when more people see 'the vision' of how we can change our politics. When it becomes the number one issue for voters, THEN we will have candidates running on the Anti-Corruption platform. When they get elected, we can have positive change.

I am sorry there is no instant gratification for this. To expect instant gratification is absurd. This will not be easy and quick. It will be long and difficult. But there is a way to change our politics and we need to do it badly. Think about it, then act if you agree.

Ultimately, our politics in our country is up to us. If we4 are simply observers, we get what we deserve. If we take part in the running of our country, we can finally demand and expect a better government. ps: This is bipartisan.

Bad news: This can take longer than any of us might live. Is it worth it? Should we do something we may never get the benefit from? Well, we can all be glad our founding fathers did that. Maybe it is time we pay it back and pay it forward. It took 70 years for women to get the right to vote. The people who began that movement didn't see it finally happen. But it did, and lot of people are glad it was begun by somebody.

Now this is our calling. We have to get the big money out of government. The method to do so is clear. We must act. As many of us who 'get it' need to act.

Or we could just let thing continue to go downhill and 'hope for the best.' Attack other people on message forums, feel a little rush for telling somebody off, go on with our own lives thinking we 'have the answers.' Maybe that will help the nation improve.
 
Last edited:
FAA says commercial pilots retire at 65.
The physical body breaks down & reflexes slow, still chances are many maditorily retired pilots could fly for years after. But the mandatory age makes travelers feel safer.
While the head of state doesn't have split second decisions to make, the country does demand a good mind for the day to day of government.
Though poised as a hypothetical, we all know we are talking about the Incumbent v former guy. While uncle Joe has both oars in the water, the former guy is just using his Right oar & is just circling the crazy mean. The older of the two, for the good of America. ;)
 
I don't care how young or old you are.

Are you productive? That's the question.
 
I was perfectly happy to vote for candidates from my first voting election in 1996 until 2012. You act like it’s been business as usual but that certainly not the case anymore and you are just perpetuating mediocrity simply because you are unable to comprehend a reality beyond a binary choice
I'm the opposite. I definitely was much more frustrated with the choices I had in the early and even late 2000s than those I see now. I started to realize after my first few elections that not only do you have to look the many possibilities when it comes to each candidate, compromising in regards to prioritizing based on a bigger picture, but also how important each election is even if you think it is small. I didn't even think of 1998 as my first opportunity to vote because from what I saw growing up, most people only voted in the Presidential elections. I'm trying to teach my sons differently. My oldest recognizes that his first opportunity to vote will be whatever election happens after his 18th birthday (the youngest is a special case who we will have to be careful about our influence on his voting and is understandable if he doesn't vote, but it will be his choice).
 
Here is an odd way I’d like things to work. We don't have a term limits problem, we have an incumbency problem. Now bear with me here.

#1 No elected official in the Congress or the President is eligible for election in any other Federal elected position until at least 1 year has passed from the end of their current or 1 year after leaving their current federally elected position through retirement, resignation, or expulsion.

#2 No elected official may campaign or raise campaign funds while holding any federally elected office. You want to raise money to run for office, do it on our own time - not the taxpayers dime.
.
.
.
.
There would be no term limits on Presidents or members of Congress, however no individual may serve consecutive terms in any federal elected position even if the positions are different.

That means the President and members of Congress must leave the White House and Congress for at least 1 year before they can run for election again.

There would be no “incumbent” advantage as each seat starts with a clean slate.

Maybe if Presidents and members of Congress were more concerned about doing their jobs instead of raising campaign funds on the taxpayers time and running for reelection they would perform better. Get elected, do your job, leave and run again after a break on your own time.

WW
 
Here is an odd way I’d like things to work. We don't have a term limits problem, we have an incumbency problem. Now bear with me here.

#1 No elected official in the Congress or the President is eligible for election in any other Federal elected position until at least 1 year has passed from the end of their current or 1 year after leaving their current federally elected position through retirement, resignation, or expulsion.

#2 No elected official may campaign or raise campaign funds while holding any federally elected office. You want to raise money to run for office, do it on our own time - not the taxpayers dime.
.
.
.
.
There would be no term limits on Presidents or members of Congress, however no individual may serve consecutive terms in any federal elected position even if the positions are different.

That means the President and members of Congress must leave the White House and Congress for at least 1 year before they can run for election again.

There would be no “incumbent” advantage as each seat starts with a clean slate.

Maybe if Presidents and members of Congress were more concerned about doing their jobs instead of raising campaign funds on the taxpayers time and running for reelection they would perform better. Get elected, do your job, leave and run again after a break on your own time.

WW
Bad idea IMO. 1st, there is 2,4 or 6 years between terms. 2nd, that plan disrupts an office holder’s flow. By 2, 4 or 6 years during which time the person taking his place could have completely effed up his work. 🥺🙁
 
Bad idea IMO. 1st, there is 2,4 or 6 years between terms. 2nd, that plan disrupts an office holder’s flow. By 2, 4 or 6 years during which time the person taking his place could have completely effed up his work. 🥺🙁

Disrupting the incumbency advantage is exactly the reason. Politician spend to much of our working for reelection either through fund raising, being lobbied for fund raising, or actually on the campaign trail on the tax payer dime/time.

The office isn't "the office holder's", it's the peoples and the people selection should be based on a level playing field (IMHO) and the advantages of incumbency make for uneven fields of competition.

Finally, the maximum time between holding elected office would be two years. A Senator would be perfectly able to run for office when the other Senators seat comes or for a House Seat. A President is perfectly able to run for a House seat, then leave the house prior to the next Presidential election.

That is the problem IMHO, the seats are viewed like Golum in the Lord of the Rings "Mine, mine, my precious".

WW
 
Disrupting the incumbency advantage is exactly the reason. Politician spend to much of our working for reelection either through fund raising, being lobbied for fund raising, or actually on the campaign trail on the tax payer dime/time.

The office isn't "the office holder's", it's the peoples and the people selection should be based on a level playing field (IMHO) and the advantages of incumbency make for uneven fields of competition.

Finally, the maximum time between holding elected office would be two years. A Senator would be perfectly able to run for office when the other Senators seat comes or for a House Seat. A President is perfectly able to run for a House seat, then leave the house prior to the next Presidential election.

That is the problem IMHO, the seats are viewed like Golum in the Lord of the Rings "Mine, mine, my precious".

WW
Agree to disagree… 🥹
 
Okay, we're all saying they're both too old. So I'm curious, what age do you think would be a good cap, if for some fantastical reason we were able to get Congress to add an age cap alongside the age requirement of 30.

What do you all think?
Congress will never agree

As they would never consent to Congressional term limits, it's against THERE best interest.
 
Okay, we're all saying they're both too old. So I'm curious, what age do you think would be a good cap, if for some fantastical reason we were able to get Congress to add an age cap alongside the age requirement of 30.

What do you all think?
Congress will never agree

As they would never consent to Congressional term limits, it's against THERE best interest
 
I don't think there is a rule that after a certain age you mental decline begins. My Dad was sharp as a tack up until his heart gave out at 95 yo.
Smart people get smarter with age, stupid people stay stupid. ;)

Some people are mature enough to drink alcohol at 16 some are never mature enough. Is that a legitimate argument for eliminating the drinking age?
 
FAA says commercial pilots retire at 65.
Strictly speaking that retirement age is for Part 121 air carrier pilots. Part 135 (mostly charter and the like) pilots, corporate pilots and lowly flight instructors like your's truly - all of whom are "commercial pilots" - have no such restriction.

That age restriction simply doesn't make sense in today's world with all the automation in the modern cockpit assuming it ever did. Modern corporate jets require just as much mental facility to fly as
any airliner yet those pilots are not required to retire at 65. That kind of puts lie to the idea that 65 is some magical age where pilots are less safe.
 
Strictly speaking that retirement age is for Part 121 air carrier pilots. Part 135 (mostly charter and the like) pilots, corporate pilots and lowly flight instructors like your's truly - all of whom are "commercial pilots" - have no such restriction.

That age restriction simply doesn't make sense in today's world with all the automation in the modern cockpit assuming it ever did. Modern corporate jets require just as much mental facility to fly as
any airliner yet those pilots are not required to retire at 65. That kind of puts lie to the idea that 65 is some magical age where pilots are less safe.
I think age restrictions are based on the number and dependency of people relying on you to keep living.

The President is responsible for the most number of lives. Just sayin' ;)
 
So perhaps an amendment?
I don't think an Amendment, which is far more difficult to pass than a law, would be required. The term limit plan I support includes an opportunity for termed out justices to retire or to return to the Federal bench.
 
I think age restrictions are based on the number and dependency of people relying on you to keep living.

The President is responsible for the most number of lives. Just sayin' ;)
A president doesn't have to make split second decisions, just the right decisions.
How many presidents died in office? At what age? ;)
 
I think age restrictions are based on the number and dependency of people relying on you to keep living.

The President is responsible for the most number of lives. Just sayin' ;)
That's not the way the FAA operates. Requirements for pilots are pegged to the hardware being flown not the number of passengers.

If I were a rich 80 year old guy I could buy a 737 and load it with 180 of my closest friends and, assuming I hold a 737 type rating, the FAA would be fine with it.
 
Back
Top Bottom