Mitch McConnel stroked out in front of the world the other day. We have minimum ages for holding federal office (25 in the House, 30 in the Senate, 35 for POTUS). I think there oughtta be a max; I vote we make it 70. Where do you stand?
I think simply checking a candidates net worth when they go into office and their net worth when they run for reelection. If they've done better than the average American ask how they did that. Vote accordingly. See, as long as they're taking care of our business age doesn't matter. If they are only enriching themselves age doesn't matter. Bounce their ass out.
In a democracy one would hope that the voters would have sense enough to vote an age imparted politician out of office. One would also hope the the politician would know when it’s time to retire. Sadly the baby boom generation refuses to admit enough is enough. Old coots like Biden, Feinstein, McConnell and Trump need to go. I hesitated to mark an age because some people, like Chuck Grassley, continues to be effective. Cognitive tests might be an answer, but, like everything else, they will become political. I am sure that there is some paid for hire psychologist out there who would attest the Dianne Feinstein is still competent. And before you accuse me of ageism, I am 74.
Everyone deconstructs differently and at different rates. Some never lose a step, then suddenly they die. Then they wake up dead and wonder, "Wow! It's hot in here!" There is no fair way to do it. It would have to be arbitrary, and that in and of itself denies you of valuable talent and historical perspective.
I say no. If the voters feel that the person is the best to represent them they should have that option.
A better question might be why can't/won't voters rid our governance of clearly senile representatives? I'm against maximum age limits because it removes the ability for the people to choose their servants. Not all 80 year olds are unfit for service, but when they obviously are, the voters should not hesitate to put them out to pasture.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you've been in office long enough you forget who put you in that office and why.
Most voters know so little about current events that they have no idea about the issues or where the candidates stand on them. When they see a familiar name, they are relieved and vote for them. In 1968, some of the voters who saw “McCarthy” on they ballot, they voted for him. The trouble is they were voting for Gene, not Joe whom they thought they were supporting.
I wasn't going to accuse you of ageism. What I want to know, is what the hell is an "age imparted politician." That is why you are unduly focusing on just a person's age. For example, I bet you'd thought that "age imparted" was a real term, even when you were 50, right? To be clear, I understand that a person could say it that way-- but why the hell would anyone say all that, instead of just calling someone "old?" LOL-- Chuck Grassy is more effective than Joe Biden, who got through the biggest infrastructure spending bills in generations-- which we have long known were necessary, because of our ageing and failing infrastructure-- who has made the greatest strides towards addressing the global climate crisis, among our mostly just talk, recent Presidents; who has brought jobs to America, both with tax credits for clean energy manufacturing facilities, and because of his CHIPS bill, which also addresses a security issue with China, that other Presidents have ignored; who has shepherded us out of a pandemic, with more jobs created in his first two years, than any other President, with our GDP expanding at a stronger pace than most of our first world allies, and whose administration is poised to achieve the "soft landing," of squelching inflation, without causing a recession, which has always been the ultimate theoretical dream of economists, but which I don't believe we have ever before seen happen; and I almost forgot, the President who has rallied our NATO allies into a stronger coalition than Putin had considered possible, to provide the resources to resist Russia's illegal invasion, resulting in the vast majority of Ukraine's land still being their own, closing on a year and a half, after Russia launched her offensive. I'll let you, tell me about Grassley's "effectiveness." I agree with you, that there should be no age limit. The rest of your comment, however, reflected nothing but your arbitrary political tastes. Ding-ding-ding: bingo! Did you not read your own post? If there were cognitive tests, those are not judged according to any psychologist's opinion-- they have definite correct & incorrect responses, and objective ways to calculate scores. So there is no apparent way that administering a standard cognitive test-- which already exist, by the way-- would "become political." Would you be willing to explain, at least this one, among your unsupported contentions? Just how would they become political? You know that Trump passed one of those, right? And, in the case of a failure, you don't think there would be a second, confirming test, performed by a different psychologist? The only way I would see a political angle, would be when it was announced that Joe Biden had passed, millions of fact-deficient, conspiracy lovers, would say it was a lie, just because anything they don't want to believe, must be.
"Federal Officer"?? Define that. Is 45 too old to lead an Infantry Company in combat? Probably. Is it too old to be a Supreme Court Judge? Probably not. It's really difficult to set "eligibility parameters". General Winfield Scott was a tremendously obese guy... that won the Mexican War and doubled the size of the United States, That's why Senatorial approval is needed for our highest offices and stringent requirements exist across the board. Our system has worked pretty well so far.
“Imparted” instead of “impaired.” I make one typo on an iPad, which often has a mind of its own with words, and you have a fit over it. If you think that you just won the argument because of that, think again.
This, but barring term limits, age limits. We can presume these ancient shells currently serving have been in Washington forever, compiling the problems that no term limits encourage. Building a power base that makes even the corrupt and incompetent to keep getting re-elected even against better candidates.
While I agree that career politicians are a big part of the problem with festering corruption that is so pervasive in DC now, I have a conflict with supporting term limits for the same reason as age limits; They override the will of the people in electing their own governance. Besides, I don't think it's any secret that the "elected one", in most cases, is just the smiling kabuki puppet of the people behind him that are doing the actual governing. So, if that's the case, would term limits really solve anything? It's like re-painting your car and then wondering why it still runs like crap. If term limits were to become a thing, it would be great if it could apply to the entire staff of the official that is terming out. This would address the "man behind the curtain" aspect when the great and powerful OZ heads down the yellow brick road at the end of his term.
I didn't "have a fit." I had not realized this was a typo-- how was I supposed to know that you had meant to say "age impaired?" FYI, that is not a common expression. I can certainly sympathize with erroneous, spell-check corrections-- there are numerous words that, even when I spell them correctly, my own spell check, changes them to more common words, which it assumes I must have meant. Anytime I use a form of the word "deem," for instance, I typically need remember to go back to fix its being changed to "seem;" "inane," becomes "insane," and so forth. FYI #2: But I did not make your seeming use of "age imparted," the centerpiece of my argument; I had only noted it, because I'd thought it was ironically amusing. Since neither of us believes in setting of an age limit, we do not even have a disagreement, on that point (FYI #3). Our main point of divergence, is on your contention that cognitive testing-- which, I also concur with you, on it being a way of removing from office those who are, "age-impaired"-- will be an ineffective method because, eventually, it will become corrupted with partisan politics. I provided my argument against that idea, and it had nothing to do with your typo. If this testing became standard for all in federal politics, to be administered, for example, every 5 years, starting at the age of 65, there would leave no room for the partisan usage of this as a weapon, or as a shield; on the contrary, those potentials exist because this testing is not a standard mandate. Our side disagreement, was over the relative appraisals of the "effectiveness" of Joe Biden, versus Chuck Grassly. Once again, I supplied a full argument, and it had nothing to do with the word mix up, on your iPad. So, I don't know why your reply, so focused on this one part of my response-- unless it is because you want to pretend that this one word had been, my entire argument, since you can't contest any of my actual points?
