Should there be a new age limit on who can be president?

[Anonymous]

It's ludicrous some bumbling old fool can send young men out into battlefields to get maimed and killed while he sits in safety. in WW1 the King of Belgium was on the battlefield, because that's what being the leader is about

Yes

No

[Syntosi]

First of all, having leaders on the battlefield is stupid. Their jobs is to lead a country, not lead a cavalry charge or whatever. They are two completely different specialties with no obvious overlap. Furthermore, officers on the field are by nature expendable. In essence, their job is to die for the country. You REALLY do not want your actual national leader to die. Losing top level leadership is a huge blow to any organization and even worse in a democracy where they are the only one elected and anyone who replaces them without having another election is by definition an unelected bureaucrat.

As for having an age limit, its somewhat reasonable since people do objectively degrade as they get older. The problem is that with modern technology and such we will live longer and longer as well as be far more healthy later in life. Any law we put in place today will be obsolete in 50 years.

[Asker]

ok I stopped reading when you said leading a country has nothing to do with fighting for it

[Syntosi]

What part about writing tax laws prepares you for leading a charge against an enemy trench?

[Asker]

this isn't a real argument. because at the end of the day the president is the leader of the military not a tax attorney

[Syntosi]

In USA the Commander in chief, AKA the president is a civilian role. It is not a military role. They are not a military personal.

[Asker]

ok you're clearly someone more interested in arguing than I am

[Syntosi]

Oh really? Because I point out what is objectively true? In fact, these are very important distinctions to make. Important enough to warrant their own wikipedia page even:
en.wikipedia.org/.../Civil_control_of_the_military

The role of the President as the highest ranking military decision maker is not to actually advice the military on their strategy. Its about making sure that the military is used in the interest of people. The president being the peoples elected representative means that they represents the peoples oversight of the military by proxy.

[Asker]

no not because you're pointing out what's objectively true.

[Syntosi]

I see. It must be because I am pointing out something that is logically true then. Such as the ability to leading troops in battle not being a transferable skill to the day-to-day work of a politician.

[RavVid]

I won't comment on allowable age limits for US Presidents as I am not American.

There does seem something wrong with your screenshots. The Mallian campaign was one of Alexander the Great's where he was indeed seriously wounded. You may have a bad google.

Arrows, catapult, missiles, swords were anachronistic by WWI. Though initially officers carried swords in 1914 they weren't by 1918.

In WWI, the king of Belgium was Albert I. He was known as the knight King because he did put himself in harms way especially in 1918.

[Asker]

I put the ss of Alexander there because the majority of historians believe Alexander was the most important man to have lived

[RavVid]

It was just a little confusing is all because of the reference to WWI King of Belgium followed by stuff about Alexander the Great. There was also a Prince Alexander of Belgium at WWI.

If you don't mind me saying, it helps a reader to signal a context switch is all.

Alexander was certainly a great man and clearly the foremost general of his time. There are Grecian remains and Greek looking people in some quite unlikely places.

[Anonymous]

People who paid doctors to pretend they had bone spurs to avoid the draft definitely shouldn't have the power over the military, especially when he calls them suckers and losers and says civilian awards are better than military ones.

[Anonymous]

I think we would have had saner choices if this was the case in the last US election.

[NaultD]

Anything voting and government is bias to older folk. So older individuals are over represented in our government. So very reasonable question.

My largest priority is that we have legal representatives that actually represent everyday people. So I'm thinking... thinking... think.

Maybe raise all elected officials to 35. No room for any other career all in or but... They get a pension 2x or even 5x net worth of their representative state. Rich states gets 2x for being rich but lower net worth states are insensitive to enrich everyone bottom up.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Seventy-five or eighty. Here in Canada, our judges and justices must leave the bench when they turn 75, so there's nothing like 90-year-old U. S. Supreme Court Justice Stevens (I believe), the Notorious RBG,87, getting (unsuccessful) cancer treatments until her demise and remaining on the bench, and (he was a U. S. Senator, not a President) CENTENNARIAN J. Strom Thurmond being in the U. S. Senate while incontinent and insensate. A Windsor, Ont., example is the late Ontario Superior Court Justice Steven Rogin, who taught me at Windsor's Hon. J. C. Patterson Collegiate (high school), then became a barrister (lawyer) before joining the Ontario Superior Court in 2000.. Mr. Justice Rogin (or "Steve," as I addressed him out of court;he was only nine years my senior), died Dec.18,2018 at age 74, four months before his scheduled retirement.

[Douglas1179]

Would you prefer a 20 year old idiot who equates leadership with a willingness to die on a battlefield? Who has so little respect for his elders that he would throw them on the front lines in spite of their wisdom? Suck it up, have some respect, and make a sacrifice for your country. God bless the USA.

[Anonymous]

Age limits presume a fixed rate of a loss of mental health. That is not even true today and will be even less true as medical technology improves.

It is up to the voter to judge a president's fitness for the office, granted a lot of them are not doing that. But it is also true modern president's don't really govern themselfs. The goverment is far too big for that.

[andreasderjuengere]

Just a public and published intelligence test will do.

That automatically will set a reasonable age range without telling specific numbers.

Towards both ends, I may add.

[OddBeMe]

Yes I’d say so. For all branches of govt. scotus, congress, pres. there’s some old lady who holds a congress seat that hasn’t been into work for a year. Reporters found her in an old folks home. True story.

[BCA6010]

And who do you think is going to sign that law?

[exitseven]

No, but a mental acuity test should be administered if the president shows signs of impairment.

[Surely]

The majority of the people voting last November. Had a choice on age. You saw what they went for!

[Anonymous]

No, all of the best candidate should be allowed to compete, regardless of age, and the electorate should have the freedom to choose who they think is most fit for office, all things considered.

[PepperJackson]

You should have to take a cognitive ability test at any age. Biden refused to take one and look where that got us.

[msc545]

No. Age is a poor predictor of leadership ability.

[Anonymous]

Yeah you should be 18

[jahaims]

Just have public cognitive tests

[noohair]

There is. You must be 35 years old...