245
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2024
245 points (99.6% liked)
News
39104 readers
1551 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Make it a maximum age that increases with life expectancy. Want to remain longer in government? Work to increase the average life expectancy of the entire populace.
Keeping people alive longer doesn't necessarily mean they stay capable of doing their jobs longer. It should be a fixed age that's only changed if there's a breakthrough in preventing cognitive decline.
I would say they should be tested for mental acuity but they would just game the system somehow.
This is the same reason why eg. voting tests are a bad idea. A test is complicated enough to be meddled with.
35 is the minimum age to be President. 17 years from being an adult. So perhaps go 17 years below the median life expectancy, somewhere around 60?
Honestly that's the problems. The median life expectancy is in the upper 70s. Once you factor in having all the benefits of the USA health care system but none of the cost, it gets even higher. The average for 1787 was in the upper 30s.
The concept of a judge in their 90s was as outlandish as the concept of 35 million people living in California.
That's neatly symmetrical, but I don't see an objective reason to have it be that way. Symmetry for symmetry's sake isn't by default better than anything else.
Realistically I'd be fine with a final term beginning at 65 and ending at 69.
Honestly, 35 is too young to be president. 40 to 60 is probably the sweet spot. Make the upper limit 65 or 70 (but start negotiating at 60).
You think? I don't think 35 is too young. In fact, we don't know because we've never tried. JFK was youngest at 43 and considered one of the best. Mid thirties is peak mental and physical health with enough time to foster education and experience in my view.
For instance, if AOC became president after 35, she'd be fantastic independent of how slow the rest of the geriatrics around her hold her back.
Ultimately if you can go to war, you should be able to run for office. Age maxes make more sense for several reasons than age minimums.
JFK is not considered one of the best. He didn't even have a full term, so there's no way to know. People liked him because he was young and handsome and died that way.
He started the Vietnam War. His only real test was the Cuban Missile Crisis. He did adopt Keynesianism economic policies (over more classical policies) and proposed the bill that became the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those are all important, but he honestly wasn't in office long enough to do much.
And besides, like you said he was 43, not 35. AOC would not be able to do anything because she doesn't have the relationships yet. Good presidents don't come from the House of Representatives. They come from the Senate (JFK, Obama), Governors (FDR), or Vice Presidents (Harris).
https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall
Meanwhile JFK's lowest approval-rating was 56%, which was the highest floor since being recorded.
By all accounts, he is definitely considered one of the best. Perhaps not to you, but objectively, yes... One of the best, most popular Presidents in history.
43 shows the trend; similarly with Obama. When we trend toward lower ages, they tend to be extremely popular and historically revered Presidents. Besides, we ultimately cannot say it doesn't work until we actually try it.
Who said she doesn't have "relationships"? What Relationships, exactly? Biden had plenty of relationships and we had to give him the boot. Senate versus House, it makes no difference on the fundamental character of the individual. It's weird to think you suddenly utilized JFK as a positive example and then Harris who has yet to prove herself (while simultaneously saying we can't use JFK... because he didn't finish a term and yet you're using Harris who hasn't had a term to begin with...?)
There was a proposal by a satirical party a couple of years ago about limiting voting for elderly by the same amount of years as it takes for people to become eligible to vote.
That's not really a good idea... Just because life expectancy could go up doesn't mean that a person's cognitive function will remain the same if they live longer.
A senator could have the mental capacity of a toddler at 110 even if the life expectancy at the time were 150.
Even if we have super geniuses at 150 we should still be giving control of the government to people under 70. Let the "young" run the country.