Age Limit for Prez

[roguenuke]

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?

I do think a legitimate argument for reducing the drinking age to 18 is simply that they are legal adults and should be able to make their own choices on whether to drink or not at that age. At 16, it should be allowed with parent(s)' permission and adult supervision, with adults held responsible for their minors who drink and do something that harms others if they were given permission.

 

[roguenuke]

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'

The decision making is very different when it comes to a President vice a pilot or air traffic controller or many others who face decisions that require quick responses or people die. In general, while the President will make a lot decisions during their term that can effect a lot of lives, easily more lives than most any other person, those decisions are almost always able to be discussed with many others, including usually experts and people with lots of experience. They have support easily accessible for making those decisions, finalizing them, unlike pilots who may just have the copilot and perhaps one or two other people they can contact in ATC.

 

[Crovax]

I do think a legitimate argument for reducing the drinking age to 18 is simply that they are legal adults and should be able to make their own choices on whether to drink or not at that age. At 16, it should be allowed with parent(s)' permission and adult supervision, with adults held responsible for their minors who drink and do something that harms others if they were given permission.

I’m not sure I follow your logic, the drinking age was raised to 21 because it was statistically shown that drinking and driving incident rates were much higher among people under 21.

We created an age limit based on science and data and your counter to that is… “freedom”?

Which one of us is the conservative and which the liberal here? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills arguing for common sense over unregulated freedom

 

[Old 'N Chill]

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?

I voted no limit. If they are of sound mind, not a conspiracy nutter or anti-American traitor, and are patriotic Americans who want to honor their oath of office and serve the American people, then it doesn't matter how old they are. I'd rather have an older President who wants what is best for our country and democracy, than a younger ignorant racist and America hater.

 

[roguenuke]

I’m not sure I follow your logic, the drinking age was raised to 21 because it was statistically shown that drinking and driving incident rates were much higher among people under 21.

We created an age limit based on science and data and your counter to that is… “freedom”?

Which one of us is the conservative and which the liberal here? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills arguing for common sense over unregulated freedom

I'm for more liberty. Not sure why you think conservatives are more likely to be for liberty, freedom more than liberals. Liberals are much more likely to support individual freedoms in general, such as LGBTQ rights, women's rights, freedom of expression in what is worn, etc.

 

[jpevans]

I'm for more liberty. Not sure why you think conservatives are more likely to be for liberty, freedom more than liberals. Liberals are much more likely to support individual freedoms in general, such as LGBTQ rights, women's rights, freedom of expression in what is worn, etc.

^^^What she said^^^

 

[JRTurner]

A president doesn't have to make split second decisions, just the right decisions.
How many presidents died in office? At what age?

List of U.S. Presidents Who Died In Office

A List of U.S. Presidents Who Died In Office.

www.historyguy.com

I don't think it's about how many "split" decisions, but the impact ANY decision can make on the lives they're responsible for--and the stress of THAT is why there are age limits.

 

[JRTurner]

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.

Are you positive?

Would the ATC folks know the difference between a privately owned one and a commercially owned one for the purposes of landing at an airport that could comfortably allow for the safe landing of a 180 passenger aircraft?

 

[jmotivator]

The answer is "No Limit" because it's not age that makes a person unfit for the office, it's the mental decline that comes with age that is the problem.

There are people who have bright and vibrant minds well into their 80s, and 90s, and should not be limited because of their age.

The issue comes when a president is so far into dementia that it becomes clear that they aren't driving the bus anymore.

 

[JRTurner]

The decision making is very different when it comes to a President vice a pilot or air traffic controller or many others who face decisions that require quick responses or people die. In general, while the President will make a lot decisions during their term that can effect a lot of lives, easily more lives than most any other person, those decisions are almost always able to be discussed with many others, including usually experts and people with lots of experience. They have support easily accessible for making those decisions, finalizing them, unlike pilots who may just have the copilot and perhaps one or two other people they can contact in ATC.

Well, that's sort of my point.

A pilot has far fewer people in their responsibility, therefore far fewer people necessary to back them up.

On the other hand a pilot doesn't have global enemies trying to shoot him out of the sky so he really doesn't need the Secret Service to do his job, just a ride-along cop to keep the passengers ruly. A pilot doesn't have to deal with a combative and hostile copilot either (congress) and isn't relying on journalism for regular job evaluations either.

In my opinion, the president is even more stressed than any pilot. This is why they say a presidency ages the person. Look at the difference between Obama year one and when he left--it was all over the news by the end of the term. I've heard it about other presidents as well.

On a side note--it's refreshing to have a difference of opinion with DP folks who aren't calling me a "libtard" or a "mad lib" for my beliefs. This reminds me of the way things used to be--where simple differing opinions could be aired, honed, and shared without stooping to vulgarities. I guess this is why the 'right' doesn't quite seem to understand that the broader 'left' isn't nearly as hostile as they are. Just a curious observation

 

[Helix]

They are both too old. Can't do anything about it, though. Age limits won't happen.

I'm not being agist, either. I can't handle that schedule, and I'm far younger than either of them. No ****ing way.

 

[antiquity]

I put no limit because Biden at 80 and SNOWFLAKE at 70 still has bigger balls, more integrity, more sagacity, and a greater sense of self worth than that whiny, small-minded, insignificant jackass Trump at any age.

Well since you can't vote in our elections your say means absolutely nothing. I would think Canadians have more problem in Canada to content with. Speaking of integrity how is your black face leader doing?
https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP._UGx...&w=182&h=185&c=8&rs=1&qlt=30&o=6&pid=3.1&rm=2

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Well since you can't vote in our elections your say means absolutely nothing. I would think Canadians have more problem in Canada to content with. Speaking of integrity how is your black face leader doing?
https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP._UGx...&w=182&h=185&c=8&rs=1&qlt=30&o=6&pid=3.1&rm=2

And here folks comes a whiny reply. Canadians, as well as people anywhere in the world, can have an opinion about American politics, even if they can't vote. So when we have an opinion that rubs the whiny Trumpers the wrong way, how do they respond? As above.
Then of course, as ALWAYS happens, they need a deflection and drag out the whataboutisms.

Whataboutism: Behind the Deflecting Tactic in Arguments | FlaglerLive

Whataboutism is an argumentative tactic where a person or group responds to an accusation or difficult question by deflection. Instead of addressing the point made, they counter it with “but what about X?”

flaglerlive.com

Not even well disguised either, how is your or whatabout your is the same thing. It means look over there so you don't see me weeping over your criticism of my God and Idol.

 

[Gaius46]

Are you positive?

Would the ATC folks know the difference between a privately owned one and a commercially owned one for the purposes of landing at an airport that could comfortably allow for the safe landing of a 180 passenger aircraft?

I've been a Flight Instructor for going on 30 years and while that doesn't make me an expert part of what I have to make sure is that my students know is the regulations that are relevant to their operations. ATC will certainly know whether or not it's a United flight or John Travolta out for a spin in his 707. But that isn't relevant.

Where a plane lands and how it is operated is not an ATC call. It's the call of the pilot in command (PIC). It's the pilot's responsibility to figure out whether he can take off and land at a specific airport - ATC has no role in that decision, nor does the typical controller have the training or access to the data to make an informed decision).

ATC has no authority or responsibility for any safety of flight decision making and the PIC has huge latitude in how he or she operates their aircraft and can deviate from ANY ATC instruction if they deem it a safety of flight issue. That doesn't mean the PIC won't get hauled in front of an FAA inspector and asked to justify the deviation but as the regs say "The pilot in command is the final authority with regard to the safety of flight."

ATC's job is routing and maintaining separation in bad weather. After that they have no real authority over any flight.

 

[jpevans]

I don't think it's about how many "split" decisions, but the impact ANY decision can make on the lives they're responsible for--and the stress of THAT is why there are age limits.

But there aren’t age limits on elective office, nor should there be. Maybe some for appointments such as SCOTUS who are appointed for life unless they retire voluntarily. But when the citizen voters make the decision, let them.
It never hurts to have a young & healthy VP on the ticket.

 

[Sabre]

I voted 70, at that age I believe most people are mentally and physically fit to take on the job. If they serve two terms then they would be able to leave office still in a status fit to carry on with their lives as they choose.

 

[roguenuke]

Well, that's sort of my point.

A pilot has far fewer people in their responsibility, therefore far fewer people necessary to back them up.

On the other hand a pilot doesn't have global enemies trying to shoot him out of the sky so he really doesn't need the Secret Service to do his job, just a ride-along cop to keep the passengers ruly. A pilot doesn't have to deal with a combative and hostile copilot either (congress) and isn't relying on journalism for regular job evaluations either.

In my opinion, the president is even more stressed than any pilot. This is why they say a presidency ages the person. Look at the difference between Obama year one and when he left--it was all over the news by the end of the term. I've heard it about other presidents as well.

On a side note--it's refreshing to have a difference of opinion with DP folks who aren't calling me a "libtard" or a "mad lib" for my beliefs. This reminds me of the way things used to be--where simple differing opinions could be aired, honed, and shared without stooping to vulgarities. I guess this is why the 'right' doesn't quite seem to understand that the broader 'left' isn't nearly as hostile as they are. Just a curious observation

A pilot could be dealing with a combative or hostile copilot though. That's not guaranteed they wouldn't.

Also, while the President can and likely will make decisions that affect people's lives, they aren't doing those alone or even just between a couple of people on any sort of regular basis. Most of the things they do that affect that many lives are decided over weeks, months, possibly even years. They have plans for those beginning before they even take office, even if some adjustments are needed. There certainly are going to be some major decisions made based on unexpected events (although natural disasters during a Presidency should be technically expected to some degree, just not with knowledge on what those disasters will be or how big, where, etc). However, even those unexpected events are going to be less likely to have an impact on everyone to the level of life or death decision, and the President is still going to have a lot of people there to guide them, regardless of age (pretty sure no President would be able to make these sort of decisions on their own, with proper knowledge of a given situation, without any advisement), unlike a pilot.

I don't think the President has more acute stress than a pilot. Especially since mindset affects stress too, and President is definitely a job you generally find someone doing because they absolutely want to do it. And again, President last at most for 8, maybe 10 years, whereas pilots are going to spend at least 20-30 years in that job (most of them) before they retire.

 

[JRTurner]

I've been a Flight Instructor for going on 30 years and while that doesn't make me an expert part of what I have to make sure is that my students know is the regulations that are relevant to their operations. ATC will certainly know whether or not it's a United flight or John Travolta out for a spin in his 707. But that isn't relevant.

Where a plane lands and how it is operated is not an ATC call. It's the call of the pilot in command (PIC). It's the pilot's responsibility to figure out whether he can take off and land at a specific airport - ATC has no role in that decision, nor does the typical controller have the training or access to the data to make an informed decision).

ATC has no authority or responsibility for any safety of flight decision making and the PIC has huge latitude in how he or she operates their aircraft and can deviate from ANY ATC instruction if they deem it a safety of flight issue. That doesn't mean the PIC won't get hauled in front of an FAA inspector and asked to justify the deviation but as the regs say "The pilot in command is the final authority with regard to the safety of flight."

ATC's job is routing and maintaining separation in bad weather. After that they have no real authority over any flight.

Understood, and thanks for the details!

However, arguing that behavior that would haul a pilot in front of the FAA is sort of underscoring the point I was making. In this scenario, the exception sort of proves the rule.

There is a reason it is uncommon for 80 year old pilots to fly commercial passenger aircraft with 180 passengers aboard.

 

[JRTurner]

A pilot could be dealing with a combative or hostile copilot though. That's not guaranteed they wouldn't.

Also, while the President can and likely will make decisions that affect people's lives, they aren't doing those alone or even just between a couple of people on any sort of regular basis. Most of the things they do that affect that many lives are decided over weeks, months, possibly even years. They have plans for those beginning before they even take office, even if some adjustments are needed. There certainly are going to be some major decisions made based on unexpected events (although natural disasters during a Presidency should be technically expected to some degree, just not with knowledge on what those disasters will be or how big, where, etc). However, even those unexpected events are going to be less likely to have an impact on everyone to the level of life or death decision, and the President is still going to have a lot of people there to guide them, regardless of age (pretty sure no President would be able to make these sort of decisions on their own, with proper knowledge of a given situation, without any advisement), unlike a pilot.

I don't think the President has more acute stress than a pilot. Especially since mindset affects stress too, and President is definitely a job you generally find someone doing because they absolutely want to do it. And again, President last at most for 8, maybe 10 years, whereas pilots are going to spend at least 20-30 years in that job (most of them) before they retire.

All very good points.

However, no pilot is on 24/7 duty for disastrous and deadly events, such as nuclear or civil war, for 4-8 years either.

I think we disagree on just how difficult the presidency is--I don't think there are any tougher jobs, other than active-duty deployment to combat zones, and I certainly wouldn't put an 80yr. old on the front lines of a warzone. I don't think their CiC should be either.

But I'm okay to agree to disagree because this is all fantasy anyway I really do think there are people who should "self-edit" their employment status, but don't. Diane Feinstein should have passed peacefully after a good 5-10 years of enjoying the fruits of her labor, surrounded by grandchildren and happy. Not placed on public display in all her frailty to be mocked and ridiculed. In that vein, I also think Chuck Grassley has outlasted his position.

Isn't Mitch McConnell retiring? I thought I heard something like that, but with school starting back up again, I've only caught the really major headlines lately.

Thanks for the debate

 

[roguenuke]

All very good points.

However, no pilot is on 24/7 duty for disastrous and deadly events, such as nuclear or civil war, for 4-8 years either.

I think we disagree on just how difficult the presidency is--I don't think there are any tougher jobs, other than active-duty deployment to combat zones, and I certainly wouldn't put an 80yr. old on the front lines of a warzone. I don't think their CiC should be either.

But I'm okay to agree to disagree because this is all fantasy anyway I really do think there are people who should "self-edit" their employment status, but don't. Diane Feinstein should have passed peacefully after a good 5-10 years of enjoying the fruits of her labor, surrounded by grandchildren and happy. Not placed on public display in all her frailty to be mocked and ridiculed. In that vein, I also think Chuck Grassley has outlasted his position.

Isn't Mitch McConnell retiring? I thought I heard something like that, but with school starting back up again, I've only caught the really major headlines lately.

Thanks for the debate

McConnell has clear problems, is likely having seizures, and, unless they have been very good at hiding the condition (epilepsy) for a very long time, those seizures are almost certainly age related (my mother developed seizures after having a stroke).

 

[JRTurner]

But there aren’t age limits on elective office, nor should there be. Maybe some for appointments such as SCOTUS who are appointed for life unless they retire voluntarily. But when the citizen voters make the decision, let them.
It never hurts to have a young & healthy VP on the ticket.

Ah, see, I'd rather have the young and healthy president with an aged advisor as VP, but that's just my druthers

I do believe the citizen voters should make the decision, but in my advocacy for the homeless, those with disabilities, and the mentally ill--I've learned very much that decisions are only as good as their options.

I think the citizenry should have better options

I voted 75, because Biden has proven he's capable of leading the nation and getting bills passed, so I'm comfortable with a president retiring at around 84 or so.

I don't think we're that far apart

 

[JRTurner]

McConnell has clear problems, is likely having seizures, and, unless they have been very good at hiding the condition (epilepsy) for a very long time, those seizures are almost certainly age related (my mother developed seizures after having a stroke).

I believe they were temporary based on a concussion he sustained. But now I'm curious so I'm going to check:

McConnell will step down as the Senate Republican leader in November after a record run in the job

Mitch McConnell says he'll step down as Senate Republican leader in November.

apnews.com

He's stepping down in November (election issues?) from the majority leader and returning to his seat until January. Oh! And it was a concussion

Gosh, I knew I had heard something!

 

[JRTurner]

So far, it looks like less than 40% thinks there should be no age limit, with 70 being the age most others agree is a good cut off.

But, I think reaching a consensus on the age most could agree to is going to be more than enough to keep something like this from staying on the table long enough to get anything done, this is not an event I'm likely to see in my lifetime.

Who knows what my children and grandchildren's generations will bring?

I can't fathom why politics are not more interesting to more people. This stuff is fascinating

 

[jpevans]

I heard Bob Dylan is planning a tour with Willy Nelso

 

[switt]

No limit. I've met 80+ year olds with it more than some 50 yr olds.