[pugsville]

In the Commonwealth Saga, my 2nd favorite scifi book series, biology had been brought to heel. As long as you could afford it, you could live as long as you wanted. A couple hundred years was typical, but the insanely rich (the richest owned an entire planet, and had a wine estate the size of Texas) had too much fun to bother with something as boring as dying.

That guy that owned his own planet, none at the executive level (and there were thousands) were younger than 5th generation. This was math, not skill. The young could have great lives, but replacing the elders was simply not a possibility.

As with most things, I seek balance, like Lady Justice with her blindfold and scales...

But it's not hard to see the conservatism built into the system. That isn't skill, just math, getting there first is half the fight.

I'm open to ideas, even if I am not impressed with term or age limits. In fact, Biden is an eloquent argument that age shouldn't be a barrier. His experience has enabled him to avoid pitfalls his predecessors would have fallen into. And many of them did just that.

To the reactionaries in the crowd, no, I just don't think the knee jerk reaction is likely to our best option.

The Brits have a tradition of making room for young talent. It's not enough, but it's a good place to start talking.

Medical science is extending life in many causes. It;s not extending mental ability with it.

Increasingly in the US incumbents win. Vested interests get entrenched.

Making room for young talent is not going to happen unless something actually changes,

Just hoping trends somehow turn around is not effective policy,

[late]

Medical science is extending life in many causes. It;s not extending mental ability with it.

Increasingly in the US incumbents win. Vested interests get entrenched.

Making room for young talent is not going to happen unless something actually changes,

Just hoping trends somehow turn around is not effective policy,

I said it was a place to start talking. I was hoping for an interesting policy discussion. So if you have something beyond misreading what I wrote, I'd love to hear it.

I was just watching Yale historian, Tim Snyder, compare Biden's handling of the Ukraine crisis to that of FDR in WW2. Speaking of FDR, he had health problems that would kill him while still in office. But he is also easily one of the best presidents we've had.

Biden may not be in his league, but we haven't had a better president since Ike, and that was a long time ago.

This is not a simple problem, and simple solutions may not have the results you are looking for..

[Godstud]

They should have to retire at 65 unless they can pass a good mental/physical health tests. I know a 73 year old who would get mistaken for a 60 year old. He's healthy and sharp as a tack. It varies greatly.

[MistyTiger]

We should be careful about age discrimination. Elderly people have a lot of life experience that those of us who are younger do not have. Moreover, the elder have a lot to give and so if they want to serve as politicians or work, let them serve as politicians and work. As long as they have good performance, that is all that matters.

This kind of thinking still counts as age discrimination. You are assuming that elderly are more qualified based on their age and life experience. Assumptions are just that...assumptions and not actual fact. People should be chosen based on their qualifications and experience in the field they are working in, but we should not discriminate against the young or old. Not all life experience is relevant to a job. However in politics, there are so many older folks and it looks like an elderly club in Congress. Younger officials are in the minority.

That said, there is one younger official I wish would be removed, Marjorie Taylor Green. That woman is obnoxious. And does she even have a solid background in politics? She looks like a henpecking redneck to me, especially when she's mad and her neck turns red.

[Politics_Observer]

@MistyTiger

People should be chosen based on their qualifications and experience in the field they are working in, but we should not discriminate against the young or old. Not all life experience is relevant to a job. However in politics, there are so many older folks and it looks like an elderly club in Congress. Younger officials are in the minority.

Yes, President Biden has more experience in his field as a political leader than most younger and older people. His policies have served the interests of the United States very well, and he has done an outstanding job serving as our President. He has also risen to the occasion to defend democracies overseas. Given his constraints, he has done a good job advancing good public policy here in the United States.

So, I do not understand why you think President Biden shouldn't be allowed to be President. It certainly sounds like age discrimination. I will tell you; the elderly are a lot smarter than you what you think they are. Life experience matters too. That doesn't necessarily mean leaving the young people out, but you can't leave the older people out whose performance has been outstanding.

I understand that younger people need to have opportunities to gain experience, but on the same token, you can't leave out the elderly, who have a lot to give because we are only hurting ourselves when we do. If his job performance is good, why not give him a second term?

[XogGyux]

That said, there is one younger official I wish would be removed, Marjorie Taylor Green. That woman is obnoxious. And does she even have a solid background in politics? She looks like a henpecking redneck to me, especially when she's mad and her neck turns red.

Why does it matter if she has a solid background in politics or not? There is no requirement for representatives or senators to have a background in politics, and that is by design. The idea is that regular people are in charge, and regular people represent other regular people. In theory, congress should be full of regular people... plumbers, electricians, AC technicians, waitresses, dentists, firefighters, nurses, actresses, etc. The idea is to have a democracy and not a meritocracy. It has shifted over the years and now it probably reflects less a democracy.
Remember, the people voting on the laws, don't actually need to know about the law system (at least not in detail), they can have auxiliary staff that take care of reviewing this. The taxi driver does not need to know how a road is made or how his car works, he just need to drive you from street A to street B. The representative does not need to know how the law is written or the minutia of how taxation works... they just need to have a lawyer explain to them in layman terms what it is being proposed and the expected consequences and the representative can just vote yea or nay.

[Politics_Observer]

@XogGyux

Why does it matter if she has a solid background in politics or not? There is no requirement for representatives or senators to have a background in politics, and that is by design. The idea is that regular people are in charge, and regular people represent other regular people. In theory, congress should be full of regular people... plumbers, electricians, AC technicians, waitresses, dentists, firefighters, nurses, actresses, etc. The idea is to have a democracy and not a meritocracy. It has shifted over the years and now it probably reflects less a democracy.
Remember, the people voting on the laws, don't actually need to know about the law system (at least not in detail), they can have auxiliary staff that take care of reviewing this. The taxi driver does not need to know how a road is made or how his car works, he just need to drive you from street A to street B. The representative does not need to know how the law is written or the minutia of how taxation works... they just need to have a lawyer explain to them in layman terms what it is being proposed and the expected consequences and the representative can just vote yea or nay.

You want people in there qualified to lead in Congress and the Presidency. What you are advocating is akin to just taking any Tom, Dick, or Harry off the street and letting them perform heart or brain surgery on you. I wouldn't want just any Tom, Dick, or Harry off the street performing heart or brain surgery on me and I certainly don't want just any Tom, Dick, or Harry off the street representing me in Congress or in the Presidency. That sort of thing can lead to disaster for everybody. I want somebody in there that is qualified to represent me and not just take any Tom, Dick, or Harry off the street. You need somebody in there that really knows what they are doing.

[XogGyux]

@XogGyux



You want people in there qualified to lead in Congress and the Presidency. What you are advocating is akin to just taking any Tom, Dick, or Harry off the street and letting them perform heart or brain surgery on you. I wouldn't want just any Tom, Dick, or Harry off the street performing heart or brain surgery on me and I certainly don't want just any Tom, Dick, or Harry off the street representing me in Congress or in the Presidency. That sort of thing can lead to disaster for everybody. I want somebody in there that is qualified to represent me and not just take any Tom, Dick, or Harry off the street. You need somebody in there that really knows what they are doing.

No. What I am advocating is democracy which is what the constitution says.
The heart surgeon is not the one that makes the decision whether to operate or not, it is the patient that ultimately says yay or nay and the patient knows nothing about medicine most of the time. It is the surgeon's job to explain to the patient in laymens terms why the surgery might be needed and complications/expectations/etc. But ultimately, it is the patient's job, oftentimes a layman, who makes that decision. That is the same with democracy. They get experts to testify, and advise, and they get lawyers to draft the laws and explain them... but ultimately, the yay/nay is up to the elected official that does not need to have a priori knowledge.

[Politics_Observer]

@XogGyux

But you are misconstruing the situation here. The patient has already determined that heart surgery needs to be done. Now he or she must choose who performs that heart surgery. Should it be just any Tom, Dick, or Harry off the street? Or somebody with education in Medical School and experience performing many successful heart surgeries? It's the same case when we go to vote. We have already determined heart surgery is needed. Now we must decide who will perform the heart surgery when we vote.

[XogGyux]

@XogGyux

But you are misconstruing the situation here. The patient has already determined that heart surgery needs to be done. Now he or she must choose who performs that heart surgery. Should it be just any Tom, Dick, or Harry off the street? Or somebody with education in Medical School and experience performing many successful heart surgeries? It's the same case when we go to vote. We have already determined heart surgery is needed. Now we must decide who will perform the heart surgery when we vote.

I think you are the one confused. The lawmakers and the president, don't need to know how the system works, they just need to make the decisions. The president does not need to know how many marines are in an unit or how many helicopters does it take to secure an area... the generals will figure it out, he just needs to OK if the military can go kill bin landen or not.
Bernie Sanders, Alejandra Ocasio Cortez and Mitch McConnel does not need to know how to structure a tax scheme or how an abortion is performed. They just need to decide whether they will OK that tax bill or whether abortion should be legal.
It is intuitive to think experts might come up with better plans... perhaps. That is not what our constitution says, it is not needed either. In a perfect world, maybe we could train people on decision-making, logic, philosophy and then give them some basic knowledge on most important disciplines... But truly... it is really not needed. You decided to put Zelensky as an avatar... what is his experience? When did he learn to be president? Or the commander of an army? He was a comedian until 4 years ago. In your views he is not qualified to do either of those jobs? And apparently he is rocking them both.

[Politics_Observer]

@XogGyux

No, I am not the one that is confused here. The President or Congressman needs to understand a nation's or his or her's district's real problems, how to make good public policy and legislation to solve those problems, and what it takes to get bills passed to solve them. He isn't applying for the job of a military general, so he doesn't need to know how many Marines are in a unit or to be an expert military strategist. That's the job of the generals. But he is applying for the job of being President or a Congressman. You, again, are misconstruing things.

[XogGyux]

@XogGyux

No, I am not the one that is confused here. The President or Congressman needs to understand a nation's or his or her's district's real problems, how to make good public policy and legislation to solve those problems, and what it takes to get bills passed to solve them. He isn't applying for the job of a military general, so he doesn't need to know how many Marines are in a unit or to be an expert military strategist. That's the job of the generals. But he is applying for the job of being President or a Congressman. You, again, are misconstruing things.

What are Zelensky's qualifications to lead Ukraine prior to his being elected? Do you think he is a bad president for his people?

[Politics_Observer]

@XogGyux

I am not a Ukrainian citizen, so I haven't paid attention to his qualifications, given I don't vote in Ukrainian elections. I know American politicians because I vote in American elections. I knew Trump wasn't qualified to be in office even before he was voted in 2016, and I was right. But I will say that Zelensky has proven to be a good wartime leader for his country. However, I don't know anything about his peacetime record.

I also never ruled out voting for somebody without experience because you have to have a way to get experience in the first place. But you have to have some qualifications besides experience before I vote for you if you have no experience. Trump lacked qualifications or experience, had bad motives for running for office, and he was a disaster.

[XogGyux]

@XogGyux
I knew Trump wasn't qualified to be in office even before he was voted in 2016, and I was right.

None of Trump's failures have anything to do with his qualifications. His failures are all due to he being a liar, racist, and despicable human being. In fact, the government held just fine DESPITE him, proving that you don't need much.

I also never ruled out voting for somebody without experience because you have to have a way to get experience in the first place. But you have to have some qualifications besides experience before I vote for you if you have no experience. Trump lacked qualifications or experience, had bad motives for running for office, and he was a disaster.

Qualification is a non-specific term, what do you mean by qualifications?

[Politics_Observer]

@XogGyux

I think a Bachelor's or Masters in Public Policy would be a good start.

[Tainari88]

Four things a great politician should have;

1. Critical thinking skills.

2. Empathy.

3. Manage power with intelligence but beyond that with high levels of consciousness. Social justice and serving.

4. Being realistic and pragmatic and being an excellent diplomat and negotiator. This means communicating well.

Most politicians are not good at any of these pre requisites. Most are liars, and unrealistic and also power hungry crooks.

[Politics_Observer]

@Tainari88

Most are liars, and unrealistic and also power hungry crooks.

Yup, that's exactly what they are, most of them. That's why it's important to have specific educational requirements before somebody is allowed to run for office. You probably need to give them a mental and emotional fitness test too. Their jobs impact the lives of many people, so it is warranted.

Education in public and foreign policy at the Bachelor's or Masters level is probably needed to qualify to run for public office (even if they own a business, it might be a good idea to require them to sell their business before they are allowed to run, that way we can be sure there is no conflict of interest) before they are even allowed to run. As well as severing all ties to private business and foreign countries, their job will be to represent the country's or district's overall best interests.

[XogGyux]

@XogGyux

I think a Bachelor's or Masters in Public Policy would be a good start.

So two qualifications that Obama did not have, in fact, most of congress does not have.

[Politics_Observer]

@XogGyux

So two qualifications that Obama did not have, in fact, most of congress does not have.

Well, they should have had those qualifications before being allowed to run. A lot of people in Congress and at the office of the Presidency are not qualified to be there, just as @Tainari88 noted. What's your point?

[XogGyux]

@XogGyux



Well, they should have had those qualifications before being allowed to run. What's your point?

Well, that is your opinion, I disagree.