Older people running for President

[goofyernmost]

Yes, I feel very strongly that elderly people (I define this as anyone beyond retirement age) should NOT be qualified to be the President. There should be an upper age limit (IMO, no older than 60 at the time of inauguration).

Here are my reasons why I feel this way:

1. Declining mental capacity. This is just a biological fact. Sure, there are people who remain sharp well into their 80's and even 90's sometimes. However, this is highly unpredictable, and cognitive decline happens for most people beginning in their 60's. We need to have someone of sound mind running our country.

2. Motivation to better the country for the younger generations. Older people tend to lose touch with what the future holds, and tend to care less about the FAR future (the time period beyond which they will likely live). They tend to want to make decisions that will benefit THEM, RIGHT NOW (health care initiatives, taxes, social laws, etc). They also tend to look down on the types of social movements/developments happening in the younger generations and write them off as pointless or damaging ("kids these days" type dismissive mentality). We need politicians that make decisions in the interest of ALL their constituents, rather than pandering to only one demographic. Younger politicians seem to "get" this much better than older ones who are very set in their ways and belief systems.

3. Ability to be open minded to unconventional solutions to age old problems. Most older people simply do not want to hear new, innovative solutions to problems. They want to continue to say things like "in my day, we would fix this by..." It is very hard to let go of the past and realize that times change and new solutions need to be found. I feel that younger politicians are more open minded and willing to consider new solutions.

What world are you living in. There is nothing but erroneous statements in your post. None of those things apply to most people over 60. Over 80 maybe, but, otherwise sorry, wrong, wrong, wrong. I am seventy and I am totally alarmed by what is happening today. I am also acutely aware of history and can see that we are about to repeat it. It won't be pretty. There are a large number of under 60 in congress and they are dumber then a bucket of rocks. They have no concept of anything other then how to get rich and that they don't work for the President, the President in fact works for the people that congress is supposed to represent.

It is also true that a lot of innovative solutions to problems will not work. Common sense is lacking in a lot of our young people that tend to be tunnel visioned instead of understanding and accounting for the bigger picture. In other words... have simplistic solutions to everything in a complex world.

 

[tvguy]

Yes, I feel very strongly that elderly people (I define this as anyone beyond retirement age) should NOT be qualified to be the President. There should be an upper age limit (IMO, no older than 60 at the time of inauguration).

Here are my reasons why I feel this way:

1. Declining mental capacity. This is just a biological fact. Sure, there are people who remain sharp well into their 80's and even 90's sometimes. However, this is highly unpredictable, and cognitive decline happens for most people beginning in their 60's. We need to have someone of sound mind running our country.

2. Motivation to better the country for the younger generations. Older people tend to lose touch with what the future holds, and tend to care less about the FAR future (the time period beyond which they will likely live). They tend to want to make decisions that will benefit THEM, RIGHT NOW (health care initiatives, taxes, social laws, etc). They also tend to look down on the types of social movements/developments happening in the younger generations and write them off as pointless or damaging ("kids these days" type dismissive mentality). We need politicians that make decisions in the interest of ALL their constituents, rather than pandering to only one demographic. Younger politicians seem to "get" this much better than older ones who are very set in their ways and belief systems.

3. Ability to be open minded to unconventional solutions to age old problems. Most older people simply do not want to hear new, innovative solutions to problems. They want to continue to say things like "in my day, we would fix this by..." It is very hard to let go of the past and realize that times change and new solutions need to be found. I feel that younger politicians are more open minded and willing to consider new solutions.

1) Mental capacity does decline, but it doesn't go to zero.
2) They write off social movements/developments because they experienced them when THEY were young and KNOW they ARE pointless or damaging.
3) Younger people tend not to value life experience. They tend to dismiss the "in my day" arguments, without realizing their new, innovative solutions are the same old ideas that failed 50 years ago.

I completely support your right to use this in evaluating which candidate to vote for. However, I would add, if you apply this mindset in hiring practices, you'd find yourself on the losing end of an age discrimination lawsuit. It is an interesting double standard. You don't want a President over age 60, but there is no age limit on the person who is driving your child's school bus, as long as they have a clean bill of health.

 

[DLgal]

1) Mental capacity does decline, but it doesn't go to zero.
2) They write off social movements/developments because they experienced them when THEY were young and KNOW they ARE pointless or damaging.
3) Younger people tend not to value life experience. They tend to dismiss the "in my day" arguments, without realizing their new, innovative solutions are the same old ideas that failed 50 years ago.

I completely support your right to use this in evaluating which candidate to vote for. However, I would add, if you apply this mindset in hiring practices, you'd find yourself on the losing end of an age discrimination lawsuit. It is an interesting double standard. You don't want a President over age 60, but there is no age limit on the person who is driving your child's school bus, as long as they have a clean bill of health.

Regarding #2, I'm sorry, but I have a very hard time considering the fact that the push for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender (which we STILL don't fully have), freedom of expression, gender pay equality, marriage equality, global stewardship, reproductive rights, and affordable housing and healthcare, among other things, are social movements that are pointless or damaging. These are things the younger generations care deeply about and are still very big issues in our country, and things which our current president seems bent on rolling progress back a few decades.

And, I don't want old people driving my kids to school either! My district only buses special education students and their drivers have always been younger (20s to 40s).

There are upper age limits to a LOT of jobs that require either extreme mental or physical fitness. You just seem to not be aware of that. How many firefighters or policemen in their 60s do you see (I'm not talking about the guys who sit behind desks all day)? The armed forces has an age cutoff for enlistment (it's in the low 30s). How many brain surgeons keep practicing into their 70s? Ever seen a really old lifeguard? I could go on. It is extremely hard to prove age discrimination. All an employer has to do is make certain physical and mental tasks a requirement of the job.

The presidency is, arguably, one of the most important jobs in this country. It is certainly one with very significant mental requirements. It's frightening how easily a president can have his health exam results "fudged" to make him seem more capable than he is, mentally and physically.

 

[tvguy]

Regarding #2, I'm sorry, but I have a very hard time considering the fact that the push for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation or gender (which we STILL don't fully have), freedom of expression, gender pay equality, marriage equality, global stewardship, reproductive rights, and affordable housing and healthcare, among other things, are social movements that are pointless or damaging. These are things the younger generations care deeply about and are still very big issues in our country, and things which our current president seems bent on rolling progress back a few decades.

And, I don't want old people driving my kids to school either! My district only buses special education students and their drivers have always been younger (20s to 40s).

There are upper age limits to a LOT of jobs that require either extreme mental or physical fitness. You just seem to not be aware of that. How many firefighters or policemen in their 60s do you see (I'm not talking about the guys who sit behind desks all day)? The armed forces has an age cutoff for enlistment (it's in the low 30s). How many brain surgeons keep practicing into their 70s? Ever seen a really old lifeguard? I could go on. It is extremely hard to prove age discrimination. All an employer has to do is make certain physical and mental tasks a requirement of the job.

The presidency is, arguably, one of the most important jobs in this country. It is certainly one with very significant mental requirements. It's frightening how easily a president can have his health exam results "fudged" to make him seem more capable than he is, mentally and physically.

I would remind you that our geriatric lawmakers were the ones who passed those equal rights laws. I'm in California, the state that just re-elected an 85 year old Senator, even though she was running against another Democrat who is only 51. And if young people care so deeply about those issues, why don't they vote? It did improve in 2018, but still is pretty pathetic.

As for firefighters and police, the other side of that, at least in California, is, they max out their pension after 30 years at 90% of their full pay with full medical for you and your dependents. You'd be stupid IMHO to continue working, and most go into other careers, often very physical. Most of the U.S. Marshalls here are retired law enforcement, age 60 and up.

 

[kaytieeldr]

This is my OPINION. Yeah, I am making generalizations. Obviously. And yes, I am fully okay with age discrimination for the highest office in the land. We can be grateful that persons with this opinion do not make laws. There is a lower age requirement, so this office is ALREADY discriminating based on age. Age discrimination laws protect workers 40 and over - in part from discrimination by younger persons who feel we are too old and set in our ways, and (despite having been younger and maturing and gaining experience throughout our lives) only care what's in for us. Why can't a 34 year old be President but a 35 year old can? It's completely arbitrary. I don't know. You would have to travel back 200+ years and ask the framers of the Constitution. Do you really think someone with fifteen or fewer years as an adult, running the country?. And what does Social Security have to do with anything? Social Security =, as you stated, "retirement age", yet you think nobody born prior to January 20 sixty years ago should be able to be President.. I think most people consider 65 to be "retirement age," regardless of Social Security. The fact is, most people with full time jobs stop working by that age. You would be wrong. Retirement age is generally considered to be the age at which you can collect Social Security. It hasn't been 65 since 2002 - almost an entire generation.

This list https://www.businessinsider.com/most-powerful-person-at-every-age-2015-5#age-72-joe-biden-72 is four years old, so Merkel, Putin, Xi Jinping, Park, Modi, Netenyahu, et al, all run or ran countries while older than your arbitrary cut-off age.

 

[Cogswel_Cogs]

It might factor into my decision, but so does inexperience.

 

[Cogswel_Cogs]

You know and if they are really old and win that means at least there will be one less elderly driving their own car. That's a good thing right.