People Are Debating Whether We Should Limit The Age Of US Presidents To 65, Considering Our Current President Is…Pretty Old
1."Yes, if there is a young age limit, then an older one is justified as well."
—u/Tails6666
"Obama was the only president we've had this wave who was born after the 1940s."
—u/ricosmith1986
2."I'd support age limits for all politicians. Asking someone to live a while in the world they create is a fair ask, in my opinion."
—u/dkviper11
3."Politicians collecting social security have no business in Congress, the White House, etc."
—u/Helpful_Finger_4854
Related:
4."Why are we letting folks who can die from a strong breeze knocking them over run the country?"
—u/BooobiesANDbho
5."I think Americans need to ask themselves: Why are American politicians generally so old? Most of the world doesn't have maximum age limits either, yet older people in politics are much rarer elsewhere. Why?"
—u/Divolinon
"Money = Power."
—u/Sad_Inspector_4780
6."Mitch McConnell has been a Kentucky senator since 1985; he's had power longer than I've been alive."
—u/Ferrous31
7."Add in 20-year limits on Supreme Court and Federal judge appointments. Lifetime appointments are ridiculous. As far as an age limit on legislators, I agree for the most part, but Sanders makes me question it. He seems to grasp the moment better than many Democrats in Congress who are 30 years his junior."
—u/matt_minderbinder
8."There is a minimum, so a maximum makes sense. 35-70 seems reasonable. A 70-year-old running for election would finish the term at 74, maybe 75, depending on the time of their birthday, of course. Just for discussion's sake."
—u/ifitfitsitshipz
9."Considering Congress limits my profession to age 65, I'd love for that to be an age cap for ALL federal elected officials as well."
—u/cbph
10."Without some sort of test for competency, it doesn't matter where you set the age limit."
—u/tricksterloki
"The problem with that is that there is no way we could get everyone to agree on the definition of competent in this context."
—u/FreeIDecay
Related:
11."Actual fossils running our government."
—u/MakimaGOAT
12."We've been stuck in a generational loop with presidents."
—u/kerouacrimbaud
13."The US Constitution technically has a provision to remove a mentally incompetent president from office. It's just never been used before for a whole host of reasons. An age limit would at least help."
—u/PenguinQuesadilla
14."There is a minimum because the founders wanted life experience to be a factor. There's enough time for somebody to learn and understand how things work when it comes to people and management. I'm OK with the way things are. I like freedom, but I also appreciate having some structure within it. Let's say we eliminate the 35-year-old minimum, which would now allow a 10-year-old to be elected to the presidency. Probably not a smart move, but hopefully society isn't that silly."
—u/ifitfitsitshipz
15."I know plenty of 70-year-olds that I think would be perfectly competent to be president, and plenty of 40-year-olds I wouldn't trust to watch paint dry."
—u/OneGoodRib
Related:
16."Maybe tie it in with a driver's test. If they can't be mentally or physically competent enough to make decisions while in a car, I don't want them behind the wheel of a country either."
—u/ExistentialWonder
17."I think 75 by election day is fair. I work in healthcare, and people over 65 should have an opportunity to be represented because they have a drastically different set of needs than people who are 55. "
—u/09232022
"F*** that. They've already been overrepresented in Congress for decades now. I'm done tolerating being ruled by ancient, technologically illiterate ghouls."
—u/GreatResetBet
18."I would probably say 65 when their term starts or 70 when it ends. Doing the job right is extremely stressful, and very few older folks can sustain that. I would also put caps on Congress: 75 years old at the end of their term."
—u/Freds_Bread
19."100%. We need presidents who still have enough life left to actually face the consequences of their choices in office. That way they'll have incentive to do good."
—u/Its0nlyRocketScience
20."Nope. The world does not need more techbro billionaires in politics. CEOs in general make awful politicians."
—u/ErikTheEngineer
21."Use cognitive tests for metrics that matter. Do not use age solely because it's correlated with older age. Person A can be sharp as a tack at 85, person B can develop early-onset dementia at 63."
—u/mintmouse
22."The House, Senate, Supreme Court, and president should all top out at 50, not because of any issues of mental competency. It's because you should be forced to live in the world you built after you leave office. So many octogenarian freaks are fine with passing sociopathic legislation because they're expecting to croak in the next three or four years. If it's guaranteed that you actually have to suffer the fallout of your actions for 20 or 30 years, then you might be more likely to pass legislation that won't kill all of us in 10."
—u/FoucaultsPudendum
"The flaw here is that ex-presidents/senators/etc. make a fuck-ton of money after they leave office, so they'll never have to deal with things that we peons have to deal with."
—u/Wuz314159
Related:
23."No, because not all old people are senile."
—u/RetroBerner
24."Yes, and I would also pay a ham sandwich or five to see a Constitutional amendment limiting all federally elected officials to either two consecutive 4-year terms or a single 6-year term to ensure they aren't constantly campaigning."
—u/lipstickd_tapshoes
25."I find it shocking how many people in the US government are over 70, at least at the higher level. I actually supported Biden for his polices, but not as a person because of his age. He was in his late 70s to mid-80s. WTF is he doing, trying to run for president again? Yeah, for sure, an age limit. I'd rather have someone who's mentally and physically alert and active enough to do the job. 65 is the retirement age, which should be the cutoff. Or like 67 or 68. Though older people can be mentally alert and aware, it's clear at that age that it goes down."
—u/qings1
26."Absolutely. There is no reason we retire pilots flying commercially, and even in the military. The president is the Commander-in-Chief. 65 years old tops."
—u/ViolettaQueso
27."I'm not really in favor of limits like this, but also, it takes an unhinged person to, at 65, say 'I'd like to run for office,' let alone for POTUS."
—u/Able-Candle-2125
28."No. Different people age at different rates, so it doesn't make sense to disallow someone in their mid-60s who is still sharp from being president. Also, we the people are responsible for voting for decent candidates. It's our fault that so many of us are dumbass Trump supporters."
—u/OkArmordillo
29."You can't be the president if you're under 35. Nobody seems to have a problem with that. I sure don't. A 30-year window of eligibility makes pretty good sense to me. The person leading this country should be in their prime, and not someone whose mental faculties are potentially compromised by their advanced age."
—u/RilohKeen
What do you think of a presidential age limit of 65? Comment below.
Note: Responses have been edited for length/clarity.
Also in Internet Finds:
Also in Internet Finds:
Also in Internet Finds: Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Pete Buttigieg Has A Name For What Trump Does When He's Desperate, And It's Spot On
Donald Trump's efforts to shift the nation's conversations away from files concerning the crimes of convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein don't seem to be working. Instead, Trump's base has begun turning on him over his administration's flip-flopping about whether an Epstein "client list" does or does not exist... Related: And they're burning their hats to be heard. Twitter: @krassenstein Amid the backlash, Trump used this time to bolster the unsupported claims of National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, who says she has evidence of an 'Obama Administration Conspiracy to Subvert Trump's 2016 Victory and Presidency.' (The Obama administration has denied this, and former CIA director John Brennan told NBC News, 'There is no factual basis for the allegations that Tulsi Gabbard is making.") But, of course, that didn't stop Trump from sharing a fake, AI-generated video of Obama being arrested on his Truth Social account. Related: Well, when asked about the chaos during his appearance on The Breakfast Club, former secretary of transportation Pete Buttigieg called Trump's actions exactly as he saw them. "So, Trump says, 'We're going to release the files, we're going to release the files, we're going to release the files.' And then he says, 'We're not going to release the files,'" Buttigieg told hosts. Related: "And people are mad, including MAGA, saying, 'Wait a minute, you said you were going to release this information and you're not.'" "And what does he do?" Buttigieg posed. "He's like, 'Uh, we're going to arrest Obama.'" As hosts laugh, Buttigieg concludes, "That has nothing to do with anything," before adding a term for Trump's behavior anytime he's cornered, "It's the distraction machine." Related: Viewers appear to resonate with the interview as a whole, which you can watch in full here. What are your thoughts on his take? Let us know in the comments. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
Bloomberg
3 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
US Senate Confirms Susan Monarez as Director of the CDC
The US Senate confirmed President Donald Trump's nominee to lead the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Tuesday, as the federal agency adjusts to widespread layoffs and cancellations of public health programs. Susan Monarez will take the helm as director of the Atlanta-based CDC following a 51 to 47 vote, after Republicans rallied behind the president's pick. She was the acting director when Dave Weldon, Trump's original choice, was abruptly pulled after members expressed concerns over his vaccine views.
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
5 things to know about the Trump EPA's proposed repeal of the ‘endangerment finding'
The Trump administration on Tuesday proposed to repeal a 2009 landmark finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to the public. The 'endangerment finding' came after the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) if it determines that they harm Americans' wellbeing. But now, the EPA says it no longer believes that gases such as carbon dioxide harm the public. Here are five things to know: The finding determined that GHGs caused harm In 2009, the Obama administration made two key determinations: that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane endangered public health and welfare, and that auto sector emissions played a part in that danger. Now, the EPA is proposing to overturn that finding and instead determine that 'that there is insufficient reliable information to retain the conclusion that GHG emissions from new motor vehicles and engines in the United States cause or contribute to endangerment to public health and welfare in the form of global climate change.' It underpins automobile regulations The move to repeal the endangerment finding is not simply symbolic. It was a legal finding that underpins climate regulations, and particularly those that pertain to cars and trucks. The EPA's proposal on Tuesday also seeks to repeal the nation's car and truck regulations, meaning the agency is not requiring any set number of electric models on the market and that automakers' fleets can emit as much as they would like. It said that the move will have cost savings, but it also expected to exacerbate climate change and other pollutants. The regulation did not explicitly address climate regulations from other sectors, but the EPA has separately proposed to remove all climate regulations from power plants. The move stands in contrast with evidence of climate harm The push to repeal the endangerment finding stands in stark contrast to mounting evidence that climate change is already causing widespread, costly harm. The EPA itself reports that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide are heating the planet, leading to 'extreme events harm people, damage property, strain infrastructure, reduce crop yields, and more.' Before the Trump administration pulled it offline, the federal National Climate Assessment showed greenhouse gases causing both an accelerating pace of billion-plus dollar disasters and a more insidious onslaught of sickness caused by heat, smoke and migrating pathogens. Though plants on land and sea absorb some of the planet-heating carbon dioxide released when fossil fuels are burned, research shows emissions are now outpacing nature's ability to absorb them. In April, federal scientists reported that atmospheric CO2 rose faster last year than at any point in human history. Meanwhile, each of the past 10 years has been the hottest ever recorded. A hotter atmosphere is both thirstier and more volatile, fueling extreme weather — from flash droughts and floods to stronger hurricanes and firestorms. Repairing that damage cost the U.S. economy $1 trillion last year alone. As Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell warned in February, rising flood, fire, and wind risks could make parts of the country uninsurable. That meant, Powell said, that within as little as a decade 'there are going to be regions of the country where you can't get a mortgage.' Meanwhile, the transportation sector is the largest contributor to U.S. emissions, making up about 28 percent in 2022. The change is likely to face court challenges Environmental groups and others are likely to challenge the Trump administration's move. They say that courts should reject attempts to overturn the endangerment finding because of the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change poses a threat to the public. It's not ultimately clear whether their efforts will be successful. And some experts worry that the move to overturn the endangerment finding and subsequent litigation could constrain a future Democratic administration from regulating altogether. 'I would imagine they will have a real problem with the D.C. circuits, you know, because they really are trying to defy a very clear D.C. circuit precedent,' Joe Goffman, who led the EPA's Air and Radiation Office under the Biden administration, told The Hill last week. But he noted that if the case gets to the Supreme Court, it's not clear how it will rule. 'The Supreme Court has changed considerably since 2007,' Goffman said. He added that he thinks the Trump administration is 'hoping to end up with is a reading of the Clean Air Act … that established certain tests that the agency has to make in order to establish its authority, tests that for all practical intents and purposes, a future agency won't be able to meet.' New York Attorney General Letitia James, a frequent challenger of Trump administration actions, released a statement saying, 'This is a lawless, shameful gift to Big Oil, and we cannot let it stand.' The shift is part of broader anti-climate effort by Trump The repeal of the endangerment rule is part of a broader second-term Trump effort against climate action — which some senior officials now frame as a greater threat than climate change itself. In its chapter on the EPA, the far-right Project 2025 plan calls for an 'update' to the 2009 finding on 'the perceived threat of climate change,' calling it 'a favored tool that the Left uses to scare the American public into accepting their ine!ective, liberty-crushing regulations, diminished private property rights, and exorbitant costs.' A March EPA press release claimed the overhaul 'represents the death of the Green New Scam and drives a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.' But the campaign goes far beyond EPA. The administration has pulled billions meant to help cities brace for extreme weather or rebuild stronger after disasters. It has also repealed billions of dollars in tax credits for low-carbon energy sources and has sought to put up new hurdles for solar and wind power. And it has launched a broad assault on federal climate research — from Pentagon studies on warming and conflict, to medical research on tropical disease spread, to NASA satellites that help farmers plan crops. Meanwhile, the administration is ramping up U.S. oil and gas exports — including a deal to pressure Europe into buying nearly ten times more — while blocking rules to limit the release of the potent greenhouse gas methane from fracking.
