(08-14-2024 08:15 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  Ultimately I agree with miko that some limitation is needed, because the voters in both parties are not doing a good job of policing the incompetence of some of their elected representatives - e.g. Senator Strom Thurmond (R of South Carolina) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D of California).

Nope, that's on the voters...unfortunately, again so many are so intellectually-unaware that's the problem.

If they want a head of cabbage as their elected representative, that's their right to vote for a head of cabbage.

Personally ..

Quote:What I would support is term limits for congressmen and senators and no lobbying positions allowed for any former congressmen/senator for 10 years...

This is more than enough IMO to apply

The great majority of voters in this country are not political wonks like all of us. They just vote for a particular party, and don't give 5 seconds thought beyond that.

To those of you that don't agree with age limits, they don't have to stop working. They just have to stop getting rich off the people they're supposed to be representing. Joe Biden has been in DC for 50 years. That's easily 10 too many.

(08-14-2024 12:54 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  To those of you that don't agree with age limits, they don't have to stop working. They just have to stop getting rich off the people they're supposed to be representing. Joe Biden has been in DC for 50 years. That's easily 10 too many.

In his case, 50 too many.

Minimum 100 iq for voters is the answer.

(08-14-2024 09:07 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Yes, 75 years old and have to pass a cognizant test every year after about 65.

Diane Feinstein was sharper than some of the people much younger in Congress.

(08-14-2024 12:54 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  To those of you that don't agree with age limits, they don't have to stop working. They just have to stop getting rich off the people they're supposed to be representing. Joe Biden has been in DC for 50 years. That's easily 10 too many.

Ronald Reagan was a few weeks short of 70 when he was inaugurated in his first term.
Donald Trump was 70 at the start of his first term.

We've only had 9 under 50 at inauguration, (most very close to 50) and those were some of our worst presidents, Franklin Pierce, US Grant, JFK, Obama, along with Clinton, Garfield who got shot, Grover Cleveland the first time, Polk and Teddy Roosevelt.
Only Teddy and JFK were under 45 and had really aggressive foreign policies. JFK nearly took us into WWIII.

Term limits in Congress would take care of this issue, for the most part.

As for the President, not sure. Some people in their 70s are sharp, and some are basically dead. Maybe the electorate should take it upon themselves to stop voting in old geriatrics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(08-14-2024 01:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 12:54 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  To those of you that don't agree with age limits, they don't have to stop working. They just have to stop getting rich off the people they're supposed to be representing. Joe Biden has been in DC for 50 years. That's easily 10 too many.

Ronald Reagan was a few weeks short of 70 when he was inaugurated in his first term.
Donald Trump was 70 at the start of his first term.

We've only had 9 under 50 at inauguration, (most very close to 50) and those were some of our worst presidents, Franklin Pierce, US Grant, JFK, Obama, along with Clinton, Garfield who got shot, Grover Cleveland the first time, Polk and Teddy Roosevelt.
Only Teddy and JFK were under 45 and had really aggressive foreign policies. JFK nearly took us into WWIII.

You're not wrong. I was mostly talking about congress, and term limits would suffice there.

(08-14-2024 01:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Minimum 100 iq for voters is the answer.

This is funny, but actually a good idea.

(08-14-2024 04:16 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 01:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Minimum 100 iq for voters is the answer.

This is funny, but actually a good idea.

Tom would be mad when they wouldn't let him vote.

(08-14-2024 04:25 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 04:16 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 01:07 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Minimum 100 iq for voters is the answer.

This is funny, but actually a good idea.

Tom would be mad when they wouldn't let him vote.

Eh, I don't know. Tom might be able to hit 100. Honestly, he's the brightest Dem on the board. #tallestmidget

Cognitive tests to be able to vote would eliminate most of the lib population. I’d be for that.

(08-14-2024 08:15 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  This is an interesting topic from another thread (https://csnbbs.com/thread-994964.html) that I think warrants a discussion on its own -

(08-14-2024 07:51 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(08-13-2024 02:37 PM)miko33 Wrote:  I'm not a modern liberal as defined by U.S. politics. I'll be up front and say that I don't care for Trump. I think there were a few better alternatives to him. I also think he's too old - not because I think he's compromised like Biden wrt mental health - but based on age alone he's at a point where he can easily start failing mentally. I support having every politician over the age of 70.5 years old permanently banned from running for elected office (of any kind) or holding an elected position.

...

You want to toss decades of experience out then. I have no issue with older politicians who have their wits about them.

I think miko33 and TigerBlue4Ever both have a real point here. Ultimately I agree with miko that some limitation is needed, because the voters in both parties are not doing a good job of policing the incompetence of some of their elected representatives - e.g. Senator Strom Thurmond (R of South Carolina) and Senator Dianne Feinstein (D of California).

Tiger also has a great point though, and I agree with him that the experience of some of our more mature elected leaders is highly valuable. Aged doesn't always mean incompetent...for instance love him or hate him, does anybody think Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont isn't mentally sharp enough to do the job? Same for Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the oldest current member of the Senate.

What do you think? Leave things as is and it's up to the voters whether or not to return elderly leaders to office?

Or do we need a hard limit based on age, and if so what age?

Or do all candidates for federal office need to submit to cognitive testing and pass to be eligible to run? If so, who does the testing? Requiring just a statement of fitness from any licensed physician would be ripe for abuse and seems to me to change nothing.

I wouldn't necessarily object to some kind of cognitive testing for those over a certain age. I agree that 70 might be a good point to start testing them. But I'm in now way in favor of an outright ban based on age. That is discrimination in it's purest form IMO. That's aside from losing your knowledge base.

I've seen plenty of companies trying to encourage their older employees to hit the door, either through financial incentives for early retirement, or other methods. Almost to a company they ended up contracting some of their older employee's back into service because they realized too late that they had effectively disposed of a knowledge base critical to their operations.

I actually prefer term limits for all of them. You will experience the same issues initially but if a person can't learn their job in a year or two then they don't belong in that position to begin with, generally speaking.

(08-14-2024 08:23 AM)b2b Wrote:  Yes, there should be a cognitive test. How about a civics test for the electorate? I think that would be way more beneficial. If you can't at the very least name the 3 branches of the government, explain how bills become law and the very basics of how our nations court systems work you shouldn't be allowed to vote IMHO.

I might even take it further and require an IQ test. If you're below 90 you probably shouldn't be voting. 80 or lower has no business anywhere near the polling place.

(08-14-2024 09:58 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 08:33 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  My problem with any sort of “test” is that I have Zero faith it would be applied in a non-partisan, non-political manner.

I am open to an age-limit. Just as there is a minimum age (35) to be eligible for POTUS, there could be a maximum age, as well. Perhaps 80.

Something like that would require a constitutional amendment, and so obviously would take a few years to work through the system.

I'm with you. I think its been clearly proven that "experts" can't be trusted.

I would be fine with 80. 65 is ridiculously low and 70-75 would not apply to everyone.
Ben Franklin was fine in his 80s, but there aren't many.

I think the real issue is that we need term limits. Parties won't kick out long term incumbents. They have too much power and money behind them. We have a lot of one party states and districts. And parties are weird sometimes. Why would the Democrats choose Biden and Harris, probably the two worst, most incompetent people in the party, to run for president? And it was the party leadership that pushed those two. I would hate Pocahontas as president, but it wouldn't be scary. Biden and Harris are scary bad.

Yep.

(08-14-2024 10:02 AM)MemTigers1998 Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 09:06 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 08:33 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  My problem with any sort of “test” is that I have Zero faith it would be applied in a non-partisan, non-political manner.

I am open to an age-limit. Just as there is a minimum age (35) to be eligible for POTUS, there could be a maximum age, as well. Perhaps 80.

Something like that would require a constitutional amendment, and so obviously would take a few years to work through the system.

I agree on all points. I do wonder if this might be the rare type of issue these days where a constitutional amendment might have a chance to pass? If it were me, I'd apply it to all elected officials and any appointed officials who require Senate confirmation, current officeholders excluded. So it would cover POTUS, Cabinet, Ambassadors, Supreme Court, Congress, etc. Leave the current occupants of those offices out (otherwise it'd never get through Congress), and also recognize that they were appointed/elected under a system where lifetime service was at least a possibility.

I just can't get my head around a way that a cognitive capability test could be applied neutrally across the country to all candidates for federal office either. So I agree that an age limit would be the better path, although it would unfortunately remove from service some of our most experienced and seasoned leaders who are still quite capable. To minimize that harm I like 80 as you said, I think 70 is too low.

Here’s 1 rare exception-

Our delivery driver at work is 82. He can’t read or write but he has a drivers license from way back in the day when you only had to pass a driving test. He’s killed 2 people (1 was a manslaughter charge, 1 was in self defense in prison), was in prison briefly with James Earl Ray. Couldn’t tell you how many DUIs he got back in the day, but he said once he woke up and his car was in the Loosahatchie River. Another time he got up one morning and had blood all over his car and had no idea if it was from a person or animal. Been sober for 40 years and shows up every morning at 5:30am to open the office/ shop following a 30 min commute. Works until 3:30 or whenever he gets thru. Still lifting 40-50 lb boxes, carrying 20 ft sticks of pipe, operating heavy equipment. He’s really got a pretty fascinating life story. He’ll “die with his boots on” as they say but working is all he knows so he’ll keep going until he doesn’t.

I hope to work until they carry me off in a box. I can't do nothing. I have too many expensive hobbies anyway. And then there's this, I'm 68 and making more now than at any time in my career for far less difficult work. I'd be stupid to turn down the money they are throwing at me because, guess what, I possess a knowledge base that younger people, and especially IT people, just don't understand, nor do they want to. Until they create a means of communicating with anyone anywhere by telepathy they are always going to need people who know both voice and data communications, fortunately I'm one of a dwindling number of those.

(08-14-2024 10:06 AM)The Sicatoka Wrote:  A hard age limit is discriminatory.

An annual competency exam (e.g. MMSE) videoed for the record would be legal and acceptable.*

*When I was a nuke we had mandatory annuals, physical and mental, to meet.

I agree.

(08-14-2024 10:20 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Term limits wouldn’t fix the problem b/c you’d still get whoever the machine wants.

But not in perpetuity or until death do us part. And that's an entirely different issue of election integrity.

(08-14-2024 10:25 AM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(08-14-2024 10:14 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  No age test. No cognitive test. What I would support is term limits for congressmen and senators. No more professional politicians. Four terms as representative and two terms as senator—-that’s plenty. I also wouldn’t mind a system prevents a district from sending anyone with the same degree or professional license to the same congressional seat consecutively. In other words, I’d like to see a Congress that looks less like a lawyers convention and more like the working population it serves. I also would like to see a law preventing anyone who has served in Congress or held rank above captain in the military being allowed to serve as a lobbyist for a company with a federal contract.

That is a very interesting idea I don't recall ever hearing before. I do think we'd all be happier with a Congress featuring more diversity of profession vs. the current extremely lawyer heavy legislature.

As a means to a similar end, I have often wondered about the possibility of having a House of Representatives selected entirely using the jury selection system? A true peoples House, one obvious downside being nobody would know what the hell they were doing for at least the first year of the 2 year term.

My older and wiser brother once told me to never vote for a lawyer or an incumbent.