mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
In order to run for President of the U.S, you must be at least 35 years old. Options
Maggie
Posted: Sunday, March 28, 2010 6:35:42 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/27/2009
Posts: 727
Neurons: 2,128
Do you think this is a good idea?
If so - why?
drew34
Posted: Sunday, March 28, 2010 8:21:42 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/25/2009
Posts: 77
Neurons: 230
Location: United States
I think this a good idea. Maybe lower the age to 30. Both ways, you get a person with some life experience to run this country. My requirements, though would be that:

1. Have to have graduated high school and have some form of degree.

2. Served in the armed forces. This way, if another war breaks out, the president will have some experience in handling the war and the outcome of it.
oxymoron
Posted: Sunday, March 28, 2010 8:29:01 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/15/2010
Posts: 940
Neurons: 845
Location: Bungalow, usually in garden/greenhouse
drew34 wrote:
I think this a good idea. Maybe lower the age to 30. Both ways, you get a person with some life experience to run this country. My requirements, though would be that:

1. Have to have graduated high school and have some form of degree.

2. Served in the armed forces. This way, if another war breaks out, the president will have some experience in handling the war and the outcome of it.


d'oh! Robert Mugabe has seven degrees, fought for his country ,cause???Not talking It aint necessarily so! Degrees do not imbue any confidence as far as I am cocerned, why should they?Pray
Lady Penelope
Posted: Sunday, March 28, 2010 9:06:20 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/28/2010
Posts: 340
Neurons: 1,107
Location: United Kingdom
I don't think there is an age limit in UK, inface we have a woman polititian in her 20s. It may be good to have a younger outlook, the old fossils haven't done so well.
TL Hobs
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2010 12:07:22 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 1,399
Neurons: 6,101
Location: Kenai, Alaska, United States
I do not see anything wrong with the minimum age limit. I think we should have a maximum age limit of 72 for ANY elected office. Not that folks that age do not have something to offer, but I feel that they have had their day. Give someone else a chance. My case in point is that we have had too much of Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helm, Ted Stevens, Robert Byrd, Ronald Reagan, Don Young and other relics who are reelected only because their seniority grants them a chair position, thus power, on committees and the ability to bring home the pork. That does not serve us well, IMHO.

I do not vote for the children of politicians, either. Professional politicians do not serve the people, only themselves. Al Gore, Evan Bayh, George Bush, etc. run for office because they are looking for a job and want to live out their birthright. They have cronies to help them. As a nation, we can do better than that.



srirr
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2010 1:13:39 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 8,507
Neurons: 484,288
To me, it is a wise thought to put a minimum age for contending for presidential elections.

If the question can be generalised (not making it specific to US only), the scenario is same everywhere. It is common to think that maturity starts coming after some age, say 25--30 yrs. And from a leader you would exect him to be matured to handle situation aptly, to fight stress, to take wise decisions for everyone, to take responsibilities, to take strategic decisions.

Youths are welcome to politics upto youth level. This gives them learning and experience which gets useful later. But, you cant pass over the nation's responsibility in their hands. They are vibrant, full of energy, may be very innovative. But the energy used unwisely is like unguided missile. It can only ruin and bring disaster.

The only question here should be the LIMIT. Whether it should be 30 or 35 or 40 or anything else?

I still analyze some of my critical decisions that I had taken when I was 20 or 25 yrs old. At that time, I thought those to be wise and correct. Now, when I have seen more world, have more experience, I realise I was wrong. This wisdom you can not expect in youths. This only comes through experience.

There may be a few exceptions. But I am talking in general.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2010 6:00:50 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
Yes I agree with srirr. Experience is a prerequisite for becoming a country leader. However, I think the government should have a healthy composition consisting of both youth and experience. I don't think it is the PM or the president only who matter while decisions are taken (or so it should be). IF there is a mixture of the exuberance of youth, often associated with idealism, with the experience and wisdom of the older people, then the optimal solutions to problems can be found more often and more easily. However, more than the age, a thorough background check on the person is a must. Still, whether the person is by nature a good human being or not will be most crucial factor, which has hardly anything to do with age.
But since someone who has lived at least 35 years, must already have a record of his life's many actions, it might be possible to guess whether he would mean well for his people or not. So, yes, I think a minimum age limit as also a maximum age limit must be set.
As for degrees, I do not agree that people who have no formal education cannot become good leaders. But, becoming a president or PM is no joke. It is not the degree that matters, it is the education that matters. There can be people who have received degrees but little education. That is because education has many facets. Only an 'all-rounder' will be capable of handling all kinds of situations. A person without a degree may have the best of intentions and he can certainly be used for social work, but to attain high positions of national importance, one needs to have a certain amount of exposure to the 'truths' of life. IF someone does have all this without formal education, then certainly he should be considered for the post. But such cases are rare IMO.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2010 6:08:37 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
'Youths are welcome to politics upto youth level'
srirr, I don't quite understand what you mean by youth level here.

"But, you cant pass over the nation's responsibility in their hands."
Why do you think if someone younger than 35 is selected as PM or president, the entire country's responsibility will in the hands of the youth? It is just one man, certainly in a very important position but there will be other people also right? Amongst whom there will be older, experienced ones also.
And there is always the democratic system to create a shift in power in govt. if something goes wrong.
vr091073
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2010 6:46:32 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 5/4/2009
Posts: 236
Neurons: 720
Location: Mauritius
I find the above equating of formal academic training with education to be utterly distasteful. Whilst recognising that the majority resort to it, especially when communicating in English, education to me embodies incomparably more than simply the training doled out in conventional institutes of learning. Perhaps the English language ought to take its cue from French on this count. Indeed, just as it has so ingeniously incorporated a number of veritably remarkable German loanwords (think Schadenfreude, Gotterdammerung, to name a couple), the language would, in my view, be markedly enriched were it to adopt something similar to the French 'instruit/e/s' to refer to formally trained persons, with 'education' being utilised to mean a more well-rounded, holistically-determined imbuing of culture, ethics, values, norms etc.

With regards to the question at hand, a minimum age limit is, in my opinion, desirable not solely due to considerations of personal or professional experience. Whilst these indubitably matter, there is, as a matter of fact, one more factor that I believe should be deemed preponderant by virtue of its primacy when it comes to running a country, or broadly, occupying any important position in which one has to shoulder onerous responsibilities, and that is emotional maturity, on a personal as well as interpersonal level.
srirr
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2010 7:38:38 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/29/2009
Posts: 8,507
Neurons: 484,288
kisholoy mukherjee wrote:
'Youths are welcome to politics upto youth level'
srirr, I don't quite understand what you mean by youth level here.

"But, you cant pass over the nation's responsibility in their hands."
Why do you think if someone younger than 35 is selected as PM or president, the entire country's responsibility will in the hands of the youth? It is just one man, certainly in a very important position but there will be other people also right? Amongst whom there will be older, experienced ones also.
And there is always the democratic system to create a shift in power in govt. if something goes wrong.


@KM: By youth level, I meant it could be upto lower level where senior intervention is less applicable. Like elections in educational institutes, Students' Union, etc. At such level, the youths are well suited as they understand the demands and environment. (Today I think I am not able to convert my thoughts into words; am I making some sense?)

And, yes, the cabinet contains many a people, and they share their opinion, too. but the Leader's ideologies, his vision can guide others a lot. I donot think it to be wise if the leader is just a postman, who delivers cabinet's discussion to all others. The leader should be strong enough to handle evrybody judiciously.
oxymoron
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2010 8:41:55 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 2/15/2010
Posts: 940
Neurons: 845
Location: Bungalow, usually in garden/greenhouse
vr091073 wrote:
I find the above equating of formal academic training with education to be utterly distasteful. Whilst recognising that the majority resort to it, especially when communicating in English, education to me embodies incomparably more than simply the training doled out in conventional institutes of learning. Perhaps the English language ought to take its cue from French on this count. Indeed, just as it has so ingeniously incorporated a number of veritably remarkable German loanwords (think Schadenfreude, Gotterdammerung, to name a couple), the language would, in my view, be markedly enriched were it to adopt something similar to the French 'instruit/e/s' to refer to formally trained persons, with 'education' being utilised to mean a more well-rounded, holistically-determined imbuing of culture, ethics, values, norms etc.

With regards to the question at hand, a minimum age limit is, in my opinion, desirable not solely due to considerations of personal or professional experience. Whilst these indubitably matter, there is, as a matter of fact, one more factor that I believe should be deemed preponderant by virtue of its primacy when it comes to running a country, or broadly, occupying any important position in which one has to shoulder onerous responsibilities, and that is emotional maturity, on a personal as well as interpersonal level.


Applause Ditto.
rbn
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2010 10:16:13 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/21/2010
Posts: 112
Location: United States


Yes, and it isn't going to change any time soon.
BonKurei
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2010 12:42:50 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 62
Neurons: 189
Location: United States
Its not much of a limiting factor seeing as how a degree and previous experience in high government positions--governor, senator, mayor, etc. are basically prerequisites already. By the time somebody has all those things under their belt they will probably be in their 30's.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2010 2:18:04 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
srirr wrote:

@KM: By youth level, I meant it could be upto lower level where senior intervention is less applicable. Like elections in educational institutes, Students' Union, etc. At such level, the youths are well suited as they understand the demands and environment. (Today I think I am not able to convert my thoughts into words; am I making some sense?)

I am strongly against college politics. It is one thing to be actively involved in social matters or maybe even loosely political issues, but whenever the political parties make their way into the colleges, it all becomes a mess. In fact, only education suffers. Many hoodlums, including both students and non-students of the college, take advantage of the political banners and create trouble. I can see that happening all the time around me. Instead of being a platform for solid foundation for the future, the colleges end up being places of hooliganism. Many who do not feel like studying just join the politics for the 'thrill' of it. Which includes destroying public property and disrupting normal life.
For internal matters of the college, there is absolutely no need to take the shelter under the umbrellas of political parties. They can be sorted out by apolitical communities also.
An educational institution is supposed to give an all-round education. That thing is almost forgotten. Many just use the college elections to raise money for fulfilling their own pleasures, threaten and even beat up students. They force students to vote in their favor. Classes are closed for no reason. Often, outsiders come and create havoc in the college campuses.

And, yes, the cabinet contains many a people, and they share their opinion, too. but the Leader's ideologies, his vision can guide others a lot. I donot think it to be wise if the leader is just a postman, who delivers cabinet's discussion to all others. The leader should be strong enough to handle evrybody judiciously.


Exactly, so we do agree that whoever becomes the country leader must be well-educated. Without an all-round education, the mind cannot develop in the right manner.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2010 2:26:20 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
vr091073 wrote:
I find the above equating of formal academic training with education to be utterly distasteful. Whilst recognising that the majority resort to it, especially when communicating in English, education to me embodies incomparably more than simply the training doled out in conventional institutes of learning. Perhaps the English language ought to take its cue from French on this count. Indeed, just as it has so ingeniously incorporated a number of veritably remarkable German loanwords (think Schadenfreude, Gotterdammerung, to name a couple), the language would, in my view, be markedly enriched were it to adopt something similar to the French 'instruit/e/s' to refer to formally trained persons, with 'education' being utilised to mean a more well-rounded, holistically-determined imbuing of culture, ethics, values, norms etc.



I wasn't at all equating formal academic training with education. If you go through my post, you will find that I wrote that there may be people with degrees who aren't properly educated. I repeat, education is multi-faceted. Education is acquired through the experiences of life.
However, when we are talking about a person who is going to occupy a high position in a govt., then it is quite necessary that he understands the basic concepts of multiple subjects encapsulating social sciences and natural sciences. I am not saying he has to become a jack of all trades even. I am just saying he should be able to 'relate' to practical situations. It is that much harder for a person who has no knowledge whatsoever of the things happening around him to make decisions.
Plus, with lack of proper education, comes also the lack of understanding of the bigger picture. Hence biases and prejudices are more likely to be the case with a person with no education.

And whatever language you use, the kind of education that is needed to occupy such a crucial position should also be very good. One that allows for a lot of exposure to the individual. And in educational institutes, especially schools, there is a lot to be learnt. We learn to remain disciplined, we learn to respect others' views from there. Indeed there are varying levels of schools and there are varying qualities of education being imparted in them. But that is an unfortunate reality. Even then, there indeed are plenty of things to learn. Of course, I am not saying that everything can be learned from schools/colleges.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Monday, March 29, 2010 2:38:31 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
BonKurei wrote:
Its not much of a limiting factor seeing as how a degree and previous experience in high government positions--governor, senator, mayor, etc. are basically prerequisites already. By the time somebody has all those things under their belt they will probably be in their 30's.


Good point.
TL Hobs
Posted: Thursday, April 1, 2010 1:25:17 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 4/16/2009
Posts: 1,399
Neurons: 6,101
Location: Kenai, Alaska, United States
drew34 wrote:


2. Served in the armed forces. This way, if another war breaks out, the president will have some experience in handling the war and the outcome of it.


That would have excluded Ronald Reagan! You would be in favor of that? Oh yeah, he played the part of a soldier in war once. That should be good enough to have qualified him, but no one since, unless they, too, were actors.
sandraleesmith46
Posted: Thursday, April 1, 2010 8:52:40 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/20/2009
Posts: 695
Neurons: 2,132
Location: Arizona's high deserts
The Constitution sets minimum age requirements for members of Congress also, 25 for the House, and 30 for the Senate. But I agree, we need to set upper limits too, for many reasons, and term limits as well. I also agree with Drew34 about any candidate for President being required to have served in our military as well. Doesn't have to have been in combat, but so he/she can understand the lingo, mindsets, and before he/she decides to send anyone else off to war should have been willing to take such orders too! After all, the President is the Commander-in-Chief and ought to know how to properly pronounce the various titles assigned to personnel under his command!
Geeman
Posted: Thursday, April 1, 2010 2:46:32 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 1,787
Neurons: 125,022
Location: Whittier, California, United States
I don't think the PotUS should be required to have served in the military. In fact, I think the opposite is true. The military is supposed to be under civilian leadership. Maybe that makes people mad, and there seems to be an assumption that civilians will somehow waste the lives of those in the military, but I think that's just a load of military-mindset baloney. Kennedy was in the military. He invaded Vietnam and nearly destroyed the planet. Johnson was in the military (he left Congress to enlist) and he escalated the war. Nixon didn't serve, but he pulled us out of Vietnam (in the worst way he could, but still....)

Plus, George 1 served, attacked Iraq. Clinton didn't serve: no substantial wars. Bush 2 served his state's national air guard, invaded two countries.

Civilians are more likely to be killed in modern war (and ancient war) than soldiers. This assumption that military service somehow awakens a knowledge in a person as to what war really means is bogus. It's one of those supposedly common sense things that doesn't really make any objective sense.
kisholoy mukherjee
Posted: Friday, April 2, 2010 12:18:14 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/31/2009
Posts: 3,729
Neurons: 7,777
Location: here and there
Geeman wrote:
I don't think the PotUS should be required to have served in the military. In fact, I think the opposite is true. The military is supposed to be under civilian leadership. Maybe that makes people mad, and there seems to be an assumption that civilians will somehow waste the lives of those in the military, but I think that's just a load of military-mindset baloney. Kennedy was in the military. He invaded Vietnam and nearly destroyed the planet. Johnson was in the military (he left Congress to enlist) and he escalated the war. Nixon didn't serve, but he pulled us out of Vietnam (in the worst way he could, but still....)

Plus, George 1 served, attacked Iraq. Clinton didn't serve: no substantial wars. Bush 2 served his state's national air guard, invaded two countries.

Civilians are more likely to be killed in modern war (and ancient war) than soldiers. This assumption that military service somehow awakens a knowledge in a person as to what war really means is bogus. It's one of those supposedly common sense things that doesn't really make any objective sense.


I agree with what you wrote above. Plus, chances are if it is someone who has served in the army, he will be tempted to start a war very easily. Diplomacy is the order of the day, not a warrior-like mentality.
RuthP
Posted: Friday, April 2, 2010 9:58:58 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/2/2009
Posts: 5,408
Neurons: 87,618
Location: Drain, Oregon, United States
The older I get, the more sympathy I have with minimum age requirements. Life-experience- academic, occupational, and just living-related gives perspective and takes time to acquire. Emotional resilience, which increases with age, is even more important. Increased resilience comes from discovering one survives through many vicissitudes over time.

I am less sanguine about upper age limits. There is certainly no magic age at which people become incompetent. (No magical younger age of competency, either, but there we are burdened with the lack of a track-record. This is not the case with older candidates.)

We now have life-extension due to greater survival in old-age now. (As opposed to reductions in the death-rate of young people.) Most of this added survival time is healthy; it looks like one spends about the same amount of time in ill-health before death whether one dies at 65, 95, or 105.

We have a perfectly acceptable way of limiting the term of an office-holder: vote 'em out. I would have been very happy to have had a number of office-holders turned out; I imagine others would have other choices, but we did not prevail. The electorate is not stupid, (even when I disagree with the majority- which is extraordinarily often) and term limits simply take choice from the citizenry.

There is not, nor should be a service requirement for the Presidency. The President is Commander in Chief because our military is under civilian control, not President because of C-i-C status. The job description is far, far broader. And, it is the responsibility of the military powers to communicate clearly with the President and with other civilians in the government, not vice-versa.
Geeman
Posted: Friday, April 2, 2010 3:18:58 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/2/2009
Posts: 1,787
Neurons: 125,022
Location: Whittier, California, United States
Given the percentages of young people who vote, it might be kind of a moot point. Not that they'd necessarily vote for a younger person anyway, but older folks do seem to assume that age equates to a right to rule.... As people get older the common wisdom is that they grow more conservative, though I don't know if that's really the case. (It doesn't seem to be for me, but maybe I'm just too close-minded to see my own shift.) That means older people will vote for older people so older people stay in control of other older people--and the young too, but only to that extent that younger people are really interested in being controlled at all, which is something of an illusion anyway, but that's what politics is for the most part these days anyway.

OK, now I'm rambling. It's the old age setting in.
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.