• 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!

Anyone else think both Trump and Biden are just too old to be running?

Partially. My biggest complaint is "Out of 120,000,000 adults THIS is the best we can do?" I've seen better and brighter people working at high schools.
 
Mason66 said:
What percentage of 70 years old in the country do you think are impaired?

By your comments it seems like you think it is a lot of them.
Click to expand...

30-40% of adults over 65

it goes up with age.

However, I never suggested any particular age, I simple through the idea out for consideration as both Biden and Trump are clearly in mental decline.
 
Mason66 said:
If a person over a certain age shouldn't be able to run because you think they would be impaired, should people of the same age be barred from voting because they would be impaired?

isn't that only fair?
Click to expand...

Fair question.

What are your thoughts?
 
Mason66 said:
If a person over a certain age shouldn't be able to run because you think they would be impaired, should people of the same age be barred from voting because they would be impaired?

isn't that only fair?
Click to expand...

That does seem fair.
 
noonereal said:
I think it's time for a maximum age for all our elected officials and appointed judges.

Let's face it, neither TRump nor Biden are as sharp as they were. It's obvious to us all.

Do you care about this or age and competence does not matter?
Click to expand...
I do not believe in ageism. Older Americans are staying healthy longer and many are fully capable of holding elective office or judicial positions effectively well into their eighties or early nineties. I do believe that both Biden and Trump have problems related to their age, that voters should seriously consider.

These men are 'interviewing' for the same position and voters are doing the interview. Mental acuity is the issue in these interviews. , not chronological age.
 
noonereal said:
We are no longer living longer and longer.

Plus, the longer you live the greater the odds are that your brain will deteriorate.
Click to expand...

We have medical advances all the time. We hit a little stabilization point. Medical science will have us living longer and longer and our better years will last longer and longer. It is inevitable.
 
btthegreat said:
I do not believe in ageism. Older Americans are staying healthy longer and many are fully capable of holding elective office or judicial positions effectively well into their eighties or early nineties. I do believe that both Biden and Trump have problems related to their age, that voters should seriously consider.

These men are 'interviewing' for the same position and voters are doing the interview. Mental acuity is the issue in these interviews. , not chronological age.
Click to expand...

I respect your stance on this.

I simply disagree.

My question to challenge this would be, why do we then have minimum ages?

Some folks are plenty experienced and mature enough to be President before 35. Generally speaking, most are not experienced enough at 35. At 80. are not most people in decline? (yes)

NYC has a mandatory retirement age of 70 for judges. (just an example)
 
Moderate Right said:
We have medical advances all the time. We hit a little stabilization point. Medical science will have us living longer and longer and our better years will last longer and longer. It is inevitable.
Click to expand...

I am not sure it is inevitable at all. On what do you base this?

Also, we are speaking to cognitive abilities and really, we have little to help in this regard.
 
we already have protections against old/incompetent presidents. it's the voters.

now, this one president is a genius at playing people's biggest insecurities (old men who have been passed in the social order by some women and some minorities) so they're literally slaves to Trump as they fight so hard to regain what they think is their birthright.

so, most of the time the voters take care of this issue. we can't this time because men born between 1920-1950 feel they're dropped below women and blacks (and Trump will somehow fix that).
 
CaughtInThe said:
we already have protections against old/incompetent presidents. it's the voters.

now, this one president is a genius at playing people's biggest insecurities (old men who have been passed in the social order by some women and some minorities) so they're literally slaves to Trump as they fight so hard to regain what they think is their birthright.

so, most of the time the voters take care of this issue. we can't this time because men born between 1920-1950 feel they're dropped below women and blacks (and Trump will somehow fix that).
Click to expand...

Good post in general but you don't speak to the issue of minority rule.

Old white men would not be able to enable TRump if not for the convoluted election system.

We need majority rule and an end to the senate.
 
Middle_Ground said:
This is something I can't debate because it makes no sense to me. If that's your belief hey it's what you believe.
Click to expand...

It's not my belief. It's what liberals want. They want to take from the rich and give to the poor to elevate the poorer up to the middle class level. But liberal policies don't benefit the middle class. So, the poorer get elevated up to join the middle class as one group and then the other group is the rich. The middle class gets screwed because they had been at a higher level than the poor and now the poor have joined them to form the two classes, the richer and the poorer. We need three classes, the poor, the middle class, and the rich. The middle class need to know that they are doing better than the poor class.
 
noonereal said:
I respect your stance on this.

I simply disagree.

My question to challenge this would be, why do we then have minimum ages?

Some folks are plenty experienced and mature enough to be President before 35. Generally speaking, most are not experienced enough at 35. At 80. are not most people in decline? (yes)

NYC has a mandatory retirement age of 70 for judges. (just an example)
Click to expand...
I would ditch most of them at least in employment. We have systems in place as a check against too immature or 'old' an employee that compromises the work Use them, improve them if you like. The only age requirement I am interested in, is designed to protect young people from exploitation ( the age of majority etc) and we even have a system in place to emancipate them early. Ageism is insidious and it is the least discussed and recognized form of discrimination left. If you are 80 years old and want to run for President or a judgeship, GO FOR IT! If you,noonereal would feel more comfortable requiring all candidates to undergo physical and mental acuity tests for competence every four years, then you GO FOR IT! I will be by your side. If you put a chronological number behind that requirement, you lose me. You nervous about Biden? So am I, lets convince the voters in the Democratic party to look elsewhere.
 
btthegreat said:
I would ditch most of them at least in employment. We have systems in place as a check against too immature or 'old' an employee that compromises the work Use them, improve them if you like. The only age requirement I am interested in, is designed to protect young people from exploitation ( the age of majority etc) and we even have a system in place to emancipate them early. Ageism is insidious and it is the least discussed and recognized form of discrimination left. If you are 80 years old and want to run for President or a judgeship, GO FOR IT! If you,noonereal would feel more comfortable requiring all candidates to undergo physical and mental acuity tests for competence every four years, then you GO FOR IT! I will be by your side. If you put a chronological number behind that requirement, you lose me. You nervous about Biden? So am I, lets convince the voters in the Democratic party to look elsewhere.
Click to expand...

i respect this submission
 
btthegreat said:
You nervous about Biden? So am I, lets convince the voters in the Democratic party to look elsewhere.
Click to expand...

the problem with this is that no one else has a chance to beat trump

It's the rust belt men and "stand by your man:" women we need.

These groups are not voting for a Democratic women, a gay or a socialist.
 
noonereal said:
I am not sure it is inevitable at all. On what do you base this?

Also, we are speaking to cognitive abilities and really, we have little to help in this regard.
Click to expand...

There have been medical advances causing us to live longer and longer since the dawn of time. We are currently flat lining but, advances will continue. Funny how you lefties claim that automation and AI are the wave of the future, taking people's jobs, and there is nothing we can do to stop the advancement of technology but then you have the guts to say now that medical science will not advance anymore.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
OK, get that constitutional amendment drafted.
Click to expand...

:lamo Yeah. I mean, good idea, bad idea, kind of irrelevant when a lot of the folks who would be needed to make this happen would be essentially working themselves out of jobs...
 
Moderate Right said:
There have been medical advances causing us to live longer and longer since the dawn of time. We are currently flat lining but, advances will continue. Funny how you lefties claim that automation and AI are the wave of the future, taking people's jobs, and there is nothing we can do to stop the advancement of technology but then you have the guts to say now that medical science will not advance anymore.
Click to expand...

You have drawn no correlation between advances in medical science and living longer.

be aware, It seems we are likely to increase our quality of life through medical advances not so much longevity.


The second part of your post is..... weird. Are you saying you ant an end to automation and technological advancements?
 
OlNate said:
:lamo Yeah. I mean, good idea, bad idea, kind of irrelevant when a lot of the folks who would be needed to make this happen would be essentially working themselves out of jobs...
Click to expand...

Without defining what that magic age number is (65?) and whether it is based on age at any time while in office, after the end of the current term or any other "details" of the proposal then there is not much to discuss.
 
noonereal said:
the problem with this is that no one else has a chance to beat trump

It's the rust belt men and "stand by your man:" women we need.

These groups are not voting for a Democratic women, a gay or a socialist.
Click to expand...
1. I am not sure that enough of of them won't, assuming high turnout elsewhere. There is a LOT of disenchantment with Trump in moderates and independents. 2. I am not sure that is all we will have to offer them. There is still time for another moderate to jump in if that is the direction Dems want to go, and Warren or Booker may make inroads with those demographics I will vote for Biden if that is the guy who is going to beat Trump. Whoever we pick has to make black voters feel comfortable and I do not think that is Sanders or Buttigieg.
 
Amelia said:
No, I don't think we should put a maximum age on running for president.

If someone spends a long life piling up accomplishments which prepare them for being president, then we shouldn't say this most qualified person is too old because they spent so much time getting qualified.

Medical science is likely to bring into question whatever age you want to call maximum.

If the person dies from some age-related condition, then the Veep takes over. There is no crisis.


Yes, we have a disgusting dotard with dementia in the White House right now, but that's not a problem to fix with a constitutional amendment. The Republicans chose this disgusting dung heap to carry their banner, and Democrats chose someone who couldn't beat him. This isn't a problem of age. Calling to fix the age issue is papering over the problem.
Click to expand...

Yup. Blanket age limit as if everyone is the same beyond that age limit. I don't buy that.
 
Moderate Right said:
There have been medical advances causing us to live longer and longer since the dawn of time. We are currently flat lining but, advances will continue. Funny how you lefties claim that automation and AI are the wave of the future, taking people's jobs, and there is nothing we can do to stop the advancement of technology but then you have the guts to say now that medical science will not advance anymore.
Click to expand...

learn something

Does Medicine Actually Make People Live Longer? | HuffPost.
 
Moderate Right said:
They said the same thing about Reagan, the best president we've had in many decades. He served two terms and even survived being shot to boot.
Click to expand...

Republicans and their never ending hard ons for criminal presidents...
 
noonereal said:
You have drawn no correlation between advances in medical science and living longer.

be aware, It seems we are likely to increase our quality of life through medical advances not so much longevity.


The second part of your post is..... weird. Are you saying you ant an end to automation and technological advancements?
Click to expand...

Any simple minded moron knows that lifespans have increased due to medical advances since the cave man days. Just because they have temporarily leveled off doesn't mean more medical advancements won't increase lifespans. It's kind of silly to claim that humans will never live longer than they live now. Automation and technological advancements only mean that jobs will be lost in some areas and increase in other areas. The left will have you believe that jobs will just be lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom