Donald Trump appeared to describe a dementia screening he underwent at Walter Reed Medical Center as a 'very hard' IQ test while speaking with reporters inside Air Force One
It is beyond reason that we have agreed as a society that there is an age at which folks start getting the social security checks we all agreed to pay into our whole lives, but yet somehow that age does not disqualify us from public office.
It makes 0 sense to allow people to be in or run for public office who are also capable of collecting social security. The two ideas are diametrically opposed.
There is something to be said for age and experience. I think a large part of the reason why executives in the corporate world, and in politics, is it usually takes a lifetime to get yourself into a position to take on the role in the first place.
In principle, I have no issue with someone in their 60’s being the POTUS. A 65 year old in good physical health should also have more than adequate cognitive function to do the job.
If I have any issues with someone that age in that role, it’s that they’ve likely lost touch with the needs of the people who elected them.
From personal experience, I can tell you that being over 40 when you have a kid is a huge benefit. More patience, more money, more acceptance. Young parents tend to be emotionally unprepared for the challenges.
I’m over 60. My wife and I have a great trusting relationship with our teen son. He comes to us with concerns and problems. We encourage him to have all the room he wants to have his independent life. He is involved in all major decisions.
Maturity certainly has strong benefits. It is unfortunate that it also comes as the body begins to decay.
My grandmother died of Alzheimer’s - her mind failed long before her body. We are caring for a relative with Parkinson’s - her body has failed long before her mind.
It is best to take the individual into account. It would also be great if the lying of politicians was a prosecutable offense.
I’m just supporting you. Down to earth reasons why you’re right.
Old folks often get dismissed out of hand just for being old. “Boomers”, etc. It’s a small view of the world.
Some of us were the original punks. Some were hippies. Some still are. Many are excellent listeners that see all the problems that younger folks have and are working with them on solutions. When the shit goes down, we’ll provide safe houses. If you’ll just trust us.
Again we have the founders never thinking that an 80yo would WANT to be in elected office; rather than at home walking the dogs.
In a rational world we’d be looking at someone in their 60s and thinking; are you really going to want to do THIS job? — in the private sector; we have effing age discrimination laws to protect those over 50?
When you use those statistics you should be careful to consider what the averages mean. Most people didn’t die around age 35 back in the 1700s, it’s just that childhood mortality was so high that it skews the average. ‘If’ you lived past 5 years old, you were likely to have at least a comparable lifespan to today, even if it wasn’t necessarily 70-80s.
Yep. As time goes by, I’d fully expect the age of politicians as an average to only go up [1]. And that’s just fine as long as they are getting assessed on cognitive function.
[1] I expect we’ll all be caught rather off-guard by this, much like AI.
I think it makes far more sense to tie this kind of thing to capabilities, rather than some fixed number.
Especially if/when biotech starts having a major impact…we may have people being capable for very much longer. Cutting it off at SS age would be very stupid. SS is probably where it is at because it has to account for jobs that may have a very physical component to them. People work way past that age all across the board anyway, and our politicians should be no different.
It’s one thing to be an office drone at 65, it’s a completely other thing to be the actual US president.
It’s a new phenomenon, and almost certainly tied to Boomers being larger than subsequent generations way longer than normal, and refusing to tolerate the idea that someone younger could be better.
They vote for people older than them. And they almost always will.
There’s a good deal of variation between people. A manual laborer can’t be expected to work past 65, but many white collar workers are perfectly capable well beyond. Compare Trump to Bernie.
So true. It’s probably why SS is where it is at. It’s fine to be able to draw down SS, but that should not be a metric on how people are forced out of the workforce, either. I was just talking to someone I know who is between jobs, thinking she may be forced to retire, just because she’s 76.
She has multiple recent and relevant certs, recent and relevant experience, has an active mind and is very capable. And yet, thanks to most people in the hiring process being younger than her (and in many cases, very young) she is faced with a lot of ageism. It’s a real shame since she’d be contributing…it’s not like she has to do manual labor.
She said, “I just want to keep working, but I’m not sure I’ll be able to. I may just have to retire even if I don’t want to.” I just shook my head. It’s crazy.
Maybe, and it’s hard to give up something you have than it is to block something. The restriction that you have to be at least 35 is basically the exact same thing.
The real issue is that someone with Aimee skin in the game, rather than someone just looking forward to retirement is way harder for the string outlets to control.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(800x240:802x242)/Donald-Trump-Air-Force-One-102725-ec8fde348bd045e481cfb5cb0617f8dd.jpg)
It is beyond reason that we have agreed as a society that there is an age at which folks start getting the social security checks we all agreed to pay into our whole lives, but yet somehow that age does not disqualify us from public office.
It makes 0 sense to allow people to be in or run for public office who are also capable of collecting social security. The two ideas are diametrically opposed.
There is something to be said for age and experience. I think a large part of the reason why executives in the corporate world, and in politics, is it usually takes a lifetime to get yourself into a position to take on the role in the first place.
In principle, I have no issue with someone in their 60’s being the POTUS. A 65 year old in good physical health should also have more than adequate cognitive function to do the job.
If I have any issues with someone that age in that role, it’s that they’ve likely lost touch with the needs of the people who elected them.
From personal experience, I can tell you that being over 40 when you have a kid is a huge benefit. More patience, more money, more acceptance. Young parents tend to be emotionally unprepared for the challenges.
I’m over 60. My wife and I have a great trusting relationship with our teen son. He comes to us with concerns and problems. We encourage him to have all the room he wants to have his independent life. He is involved in all major decisions.
Maturity certainly has strong benefits. It is unfortunate that it also comes as the body begins to decay.
My grandmother died of Alzheimer’s - her mind failed long before her body. We are caring for a relative with Parkinson’s - her body has failed long before her mind.
It is best to take the individual into account. It would also be great if the lying of politicians was a prosecutable offense.
You’re describing exactly what I’m talking about. Definitely case by case.
I’m just supporting you. Down to earth reasons why you’re right.
Old folks often get dismissed out of hand just for being old. “Boomers”, etc. It’s a small view of the world.
Some of us were the original punks. Some were hippies. Some still are. Many are excellent listeners that see all the problems that younger folks have and are working with them on solutions. When the shit goes down, we’ll provide safe houses. If you’ll just trust us.
lol… we are in violent agreement 😂
Yep. 100%. I do think a lot of the ageism being sowed as discord between generations is orchestrated. Another way to atomize the population.
Correct.
Again we have the founders never thinking that an 80yo would WANT to be in elected office; rather than at home walking the dogs.
In a rational world we’d be looking at someone in their 60s and thinking; are you really going to want to do THIS job? — in the private sector; we have effing age discrimination laws to protect those over 50?
average lifespan in the 1770s was 35 years.
In the early 1900s it was still only 55 years.
When you use those statistics you should be careful to consider what the averages mean. Most people didn’t die around age 35 back in the 1700s, it’s just that childhood mortality was so high that it skews the average. ‘If’ you lived past 5 years old, you were likely to have at least a comparable lifespan to today, even if it wasn’t necessarily 70-80s.
Yep. As time goes by, I’d fully expect the age of politicians as an average to only go up [1]. And that’s just fine as long as they are getting assessed on cognitive function.
[1] I expect we’ll all be caught rather off-guard by this, much like AI.
I think it makes far more sense to tie this kind of thing to capabilities, rather than some fixed number.
Especially if/when biotech starts having a major impact…we may have people being capable for very much longer. Cutting it off at SS age would be very stupid. SS is probably where it is at because it has to account for jobs that may have a very physical component to them. People work way past that age all across the board anyway, and our politicians should be no different.
Yep.
It’s one thing to be an office drone at 65, it’s a completely other thing to be the actual US president.
It’s a new phenomenon, and almost certainly tied to Boomers being larger than subsequent generations way longer than normal, and refusing to tolerate the idea that someone younger could be better.
They vote for people older than them. And they almost always will.
There’s a good deal of variation between people. A manual laborer can’t be expected to work past 65, but many white collar workers are perfectly capable well beyond. Compare Trump to Bernie.
So true. It’s probably why SS is where it is at. It’s fine to be able to draw down SS, but that should not be a metric on how people are forced out of the workforce, either. I was just talking to someone I know who is between jobs, thinking she may be forced to retire, just because she’s 76.
She has multiple recent and relevant certs, recent and relevant experience, has an active mind and is very capable. And yet, thanks to most people in the hiring process being younger than her (and in many cases, very young) she is faced with a lot of ageism. It’s a real shame since she’d be contributing…it’s not like she has to do manual labor.
She said, “I just want to keep working, but I’m not sure I’ll be able to. I may just have to retire even if I don’t want to.” I just shook my head. It’s crazy.
I agree, but their argument is that by not allowing people of that age, that demographic then loses their representation in government.
Maybe, and it’s hard to give up something you have than it is to block something. The restriction that you have to be at least 35 is basically the exact same thing.
The real issue is that someone with Aimee skin in the game, rather than someone just looking forward to retirement is way harder for the string outlets to control.