100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Agist? maybe ... but | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Currently, the constitution requires president to be at least 35 years old. I think that is in line with life experience and physical development. In terms of physiological development, the thirties are a time that we are peaking and open at the same time, still concerning with the future we can still imagine ahead of us.
On the flip side though, and I love elders and realize I am on my way soon to being one, is that older folks tend to be much more assured in their own experiences, and less open to others. They are less likely to accept any reality or truth but the one they lived, and they are more susceptible to illness and injury. They are rightfully presumed wise, but at the same time, that presumption can often make them less willing to accept when they are wrong or that some other answer may be just as correct. I am hoping for a POTUS that is closer to their peak than at the end of their years. Time for candidates who are more open and less set in ways that may have worked best when demographics were different and population was less. Im sure it is not a popular position, and certainly it is not an absolute standard or reality for all elders. It is of interesting note though, that when the minimum age of 35 was set in 1787, life expectancy was only around 40 years old. Of course, that is when there were only 3.9 million people and 700,0000 slaves. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
IgorFrankensteen
on
Sun 03/03/19 02:22 PM
|
|
Using age as a way of trying to deal with concerns about a given individuals capabilities in ANY situation, has always been less than ideal. What would be ideal, is to have some reliable way to determine if a given person is capable of dealing with whatever it is that needs to be dealt with. Whether that's being understanding and psychologically balanced and personally knowledgeable enough to watch a scary film, or being ready to take the reigns of leadership. Age restrictions have always been a stop-gap, "quick fix" fallback. As for the Presidency, so far, the youngest person who has ever become President, was already 42. I think many of us know people younger than 35 who we would imagine could handle being in a top position, and that most of us also know plenty of people who shouldn't even be allowed to decide how to dress on their own, at any age. I found this article just now, that seems cogent on describing some of the known thinking behind the age limits for President and Congress. I especially like where one person in particular avowed that he supported the age limits, because he knows that HE was too immature to have been given any power when HE was below the ages chosen. Someone else actually seems to express your own concern, about losing out on the creativity of youth this way. My thinking is that like many things in life, it's less about age or even experience, than it is about the individual and what they've MADE of their age and experience. Difficult to measure, and even tougher to codify for something like a Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally, I think 35 is way to young!! Assuming they are college educated, that only gives them 10-15 years of actual living experience! Ideally, I would like to see someone in the 50-60 range and at a point in their life and career where being POTUS is more the culmination instead of another stepping stone to their careers.
Another challenge with choosing a POTUS is actually finding out about them. Most politicians have much of their history hidden; what you see is their public image. When we look at non-politicians, those who have been in a private setting are hard to learn about. It is much easier to learn about someone who has been in the public but really had no incentive to hide their past. I doubt most people really know what kind of background or credentials they want in a candidate; it tends to become a beauty/popularity contest. Reminds me of being back in high school!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using age as a way of trying to deal with concerns about a given individuals capabilities in ANY situation, has always been less than ideal. What would be ideal, is to have some reliable way to determine if a given person is capable of dealing with whatever it is that needs to be dealt with. Whether that's being understanding and psychologically balanced and personally knowledgeable enough to watch a scary film, or being ready to take the reigns of leadership. Age restrictions have always been a stop-gap, "quick fix" fallback. As for the Presidency, so far, the youngest person who has ever become President, was already 42. I think many of us know people younger than 35 who we would imagine could handle being in a top position, and that most of us also know plenty of people who shouldn't even be allowed to decide how to dress on their own, at any age. I found this article just now, that seems cogent on describing some of the known thinking behind the age limits for President and Congress. I especially like where one person in particular avowed that he supported the age limits, because he knows that HE was too immature to have been given any power when HE was below the ages chosen. Someone else actually seems to express your own concern, about losing out on the creativity of youth this way. My thinking is that like many things in life, it's less about age or even experience, than it is about the individual and what they've MADE of their age and experience. Difficult to measure, and even tougher to codify for something like a Constitution. you tend to contribute well considered and logical arguments. I appreciate it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I forgot to link the article I was talking about!
Here it is in case it's illuminating. It starts out talking about someone recently trying to get the age changed, but down the body of it, it gets into why those ages were chosen to begin with. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-a-presidential-candidate-need-to-be-35-years-old-anyway |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Republicans don't have to endorse Trump as their candidate for a second term. Trump could still run as an independent or under another party, but this would insure a split of votes and guaranty a loss for the Republican party. With the ever increasing Democrat trend the Republicans need to pull a rabbit out of their hat to come up with a candidate that is far superior to the Democrates candidate. It still amazes me that people are so brainwashed that they can't see that things are only going to continue to get worse as long as its up to only Democrats and Republicans, but as always it comes down to money. If people where more concerned about what people can get done instead of what party they belong too we'd all be much better off. Open your minds and vote independent, green party, or whom ever is willing to offer up smarter ways of doing things.
|
|
|
|
|
