What If?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm think term limits for Congress would solve more issues than updating age limits.

This would all but ensure 100% of congresspeople are there to get contacts to make money after leaving office. Sure, the percentage is high now. But not 100%.

 

[Crick]

The GOP of course would not remove Trump, even if he got the lowest score ever recorded on the test.

It would be Trump vs. Biden's replacement.

I agree. And Biden has not shown himself to be taking the idea of stepping away seriously. But it would impact voter enthusiasm tremendously. However, as has been pointed out, there is no Constitutional requirement for cognition, intelligence, integrity or wisdom. The constitution would not prevent us from electing a murderous, rapist, seditionist, criminal mastermind even had he been declared brain dead from the overconsumption of fast food and diet coke. So the election would go on and one would win. So we would be relying on either an impeachment, if the president were to commit an impeachable offense, or that the Vice President, a majority of the Cabinet and 2/3rds majorities of both houses of Congress were to agree that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office of the President and that we would all be happy with whoever had been the Vice President.

 

[Independent thinker]

If either failed, they ought to withdraw. Failing that, they could be replaced as candidate at their respective conventions.

I don't believe in opening up even more cans of worms. We don't need one thousand different criteria in order to run for president. You meet the criteria established in the Constitution and then voters are the rest of the criteria. Democrats tried to overrule the criteria we have and force Trump off the ballot.

 

[Crick]

I don't believe in opening up even more cans of worms. We don't need one thousand different criteria in order to run for president. You meet the criteria established in the Constitution and then voters are the rest of the criteria.

How about just an upper age limit?

 

[Auld Phart]

What if they both failed? You opened the thread.

we might get someone that can actually do the job.

But sadly, they would receive votes from millions of people anyway,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I agree. And Biden has not shown himself to be taking the idea of stepping away seriously. But it would impact voter enthusiasm tremendously. However, as has been pointed out, there is no Constitutional requirement for cognition, intelligence, integrity or wisdom. The constitution would not prevent us from electing a murderous, rapist, seditionist, criminal mastermind even had he been declared brain dead from the overconsumption of fast food and diet coke. So the election would go on and one would win. So we would be relying on either an impeachment, if the president were to commit an impeachable offense, or that the Vice President, a majority of the Cabinet and 2/3rds majorities of both houses of Congress were to agree that the president is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office of the President and that we would all be happy with whoever had been the Vice President.

Which would never happen.

Democrats tried to overrule the criteria we have and force Trump off the ballot.

Hmm, no, clearly they operated withing State law that says an insurrectionist can be barred from running for office. So no, you are incorrect that they invented something new.

I can understand how using due process only might seem foreign, to a Trump supporter.

"What is this black magic?"

 

[Independent thinker]

How about just an upper age limit?

No, because, generally speaking, people live longer and longer all the time due to advances in medicine and it's just too hard to constantly readjust the age. If we aren't going to let voters decide if a person is up to the job or not then why even have voting?

 

[struth]

Stop whining and just answer.

What part of my post was whining? And what part did you not think answered the question?

You dembots are so used to being told what to think you can’t even think?

 

[JGalt]

While Trump is at the upper percentile of what anyone reasonably can expect at 78 years old, essentialy hardly losing any edge over how he was in 2016, Joe Biden is at the lowest percentile of what I hope to be when I'm 81.

If anything, democrats are kinda lucky--- Trump is holding back--- I think he took someone's advice and mellowed out his speeches now compared to the fiery rants he used to give in 2016 calling for hecklers in the crowd to be beaten up and thrown out.

I've noticed that with the exception of a few social media posts, he has been holding back lately. I would imagine that at this point, he's just sitting back watching the Democrats burn their own house down.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What part of my post was whining? And what part did you not think answered the question?

You dembots are so used to being told what to think you can’t even think?

That's twice you crybabied, instead of just answering the question. Stop whining.

 

[whitehall]

What if? Don't we have enough problems with a president who clearly shows a mental decline and refuses to bow out? Stick to freaking reality before you drift into fantasy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What if? Don't we have enough problems with a president who clearly shows a mental decline and refuses to bow out? Stick to freaking reality before you drift into fantasy.

This thread is about codifying that with something objective, instead of the fetishes of wingnuts.

 

[Crick]

No, because, generally speaking, people live longer and longer all the time due to advances in medicine and it's just too hard to constantly readjust the age. If we aren't going to let voters decide if a person is up to the job or not then why even have voting?

Since there is all manner of variance in the population, ANY number selected will be arbitrary as are the requirements already in the Constitution. It's entirely possible that a 28 year old citizen of New Zealand could be the best president we've ever had. So, let's just agree to be happy about its arbitrariness and say something like "less than or equal to XX years of age by the date of inauguration"?

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Why would Donald Trump need to take any further tests? He's not the one stumbling, bumbling, muttering incoherently, wandering about, and falling down.

.

But their TV's tell them otherwise and they are incapable of forming opinions different from what the idiot box says.

.

 

[Independent thinker]

Since there is all manner of variance in the population, ANY number selected will be arbitrary as are the requirements already in the Constitution. It's entirely possible that a 28 year old citizen of New Zealand could be the best president we've ever had. So, let's just agree to be happy about its arbitrariness and say something like "less than or equal to XX years of age by the date of inauguration"?

I'm still against opening cans of worms. My question still stands. If we aren't going to let voters decide if someone is up to the job or not, then why bother having voting at all?

 

[Crick]

I'm still against opening cans of worms. My question still stands. If we aren't going to let voters decide if someone is up to the job or not, then why bother having voting at all?

Hmm... there are already Constitutional requirements, so that even if voters favored such, they cannot elect a non-citizen or someone under the age of 35 or who hasn't lived here at least 14 years. So it is NOT wholly the choice of the voters. It is the voter's choice among qualified candidates. And look at the mess with Colorado and Maine trying to throw Trump off the ticket. The Constitution clearly gives the states the authority to conduct general elections and there is a good chance that decision will be reversed by a later court.

Closer to home I would favor mandatory, annual skill testing for drivers over, say, 65 - even though I would be subject to them myself. I do not want to authorize ageism in any field, but it is ridiculous to pretend that humans do not begin to deteriorate both physically and mentally as we age. Airline pilots are required by the FAA to retire at 65. Other federal positions that have mandatory retirement ages include firefighters, nuclear materials couriers, air traffic controllers, and customs and border protection officers. (Yes, employers can set a mandatory retirement age. What you need to know. It could hardly be argued that age deterioration in the presidency does not threaten as much public harm as it does for those individuals.

 

[Billiejeens]

While Trump is at the upper percentile of what anyone reasonably can expect at 78 years old, essentialy hardly losing any edge over how he was in 2016, Joe Biden is at the lowest percentile of what I hope to be when I'm 81.

If anything, democrats are kinda lucky--- Trump is holding back--- I think he took someone's advice and mellowed out his speeches now compared to the fiery rants he used to give in 2016 calling for hecklers in the crowd to be beaten up and thrown out.

We wasn't wrong, but...

 

[Resnic]

I'm think term limits for Congress would solve more issues than updating age limits.

That wouldn't matter at all because we're in the mess we're in because many use their political stance to make money. Limiting terms wouldn't change that. They would still be there to sell American policies to foreign interests via donations from like George soros, they would still push policy interests of corporations like car and drug companies, they would still use insider trading to make millions

Nancy pelosi, Bidens family, Bernie sanders, and so on. There are a lot of senators who became multi millionaires while senators despite making like 175k a year.

Term length isn't the issue it used to be, now it's about abusing their status for money. That's why we ultimately have seen so many anti America decisions being made because politicians will sell the country up shit creek for their own personal financial gain.

You could be right and that is a fix, but I think it's more about money to be made than time spent.

 

[Independent thinker]

Hmm... there are already Constitutional requirements, so that even if voters favored such, they cannot elect a non-citizen or someone under the age of 35 or who hasn't lived here at least 14 years. So it is NOT wholly the choice of the voters. It is the voter's choice among qualified candidates. And look at the mess with Colorado and Maine trying to throw Trump off the ticket. The Constitution clearly gives the states the authority to conduct general elections and there is a good chance that decision will be reversed by a later court.

Closer to home I would favor mandatory, annual skill testing for drivers over, say, 65 - even though I would be subject to them myself. I do not want to authorize ageism in any field, but it is ridiculous to pretend that humans do not begin to deteriorate both physically and mentally as we age. Airline pilots are required by the FAA to retire at 65. Other federal positions that have mandatory retirement ages include firefighters, nuclear materials couriers, air traffic controllers, and customs and border protection officers. (Yes, employers can set a mandatory retirement age. What you need to know. It could hardly be argued that age deterioration in the presidency does not threaten as much public harm as it does for those individuals.

The more you add to the list of qualifications, the more you take the decision out of voter's hands. Once you start adding things then where do you stop? If the voters are too stupid to decide if someone can do the job or not we should just take elections away from the voters.

 

[struth]

That's twice you crybabied, instead of just answering the question. Stop whining.

Haha you are the only one whining, apparently you fail at reading comp. The question was answered