It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Age Limits For Congress

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Term limits Not age limits.

The problem is politicians that decided to make lifetime commitments to screw people over.

That is where the problem is.


Funny thing is there are already Term Limits, by Voting. It's the revolving door that should be addressed and Campaign Finance. Work the Masses you crooked buggers!




posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: ugmold

originally posted by: neo96
Term limits Not age limits.

The problem is politicians that decided to make lifetime commitments to screw people over.

That is where the problem is.


Funny thing is there are already Term Limits, by Voting. It's the revolving door that should be addressed and Campaign Finance. Work the Masses you crooked buggers!


Not the same thing.

Totally different equation when people can't run again.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

And what if one day, there is an amazing congressman/woman who sadly has to go because of term limits???


That's not healthy to a good country in my opinion.


If they're crap vote em out, don't limit the rare good ones.
edit on 5-1-2017 by Hazardous1408 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2017 by Hazardous1408 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

See, to me its an asinine argument.

How do we know the founders actually cared to consider the impacts of modern longevity? Or perhaps they discussed it ad nauseum, and there's just no record of it.

So without knowing any of the above, using the term "the founding fathers never considered X in the modern age" is really just a simple hyperbole that is made up like any other hyperbole.

That little pet peeve aside, Im not sure the ill condition of one candidate would be justification for amending the constitution. In fact, allowing The Great Circus of 2016 to be a catalyst for legislation just seems like a bad idea in general.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: neo96

And what if one day, there is an amazing congressman/woman who sadly has to go because of term limits???


That's not healthy to a good country in my opinion.


If they're crap vote em out, don't limit the rare good ones.


Crap is perspective, though. Especially when media colludes outright.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: GodEmperor

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GodEmperor

Just saying. Donald J. Trump is 70 years old.


Then you agree.


Age discrimination eh? What's next, skin color, religious affiliations, IQ, get the picture...slippery slope



Ummm...I know...right...?
I'm on the down hill side of 50 is the new 40...and my mental acuity isn't slip...slip..."Hang on sloopy...sloopy hang on"...

Sorry...where...where was I...?


YouSir



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Abysha

There is already age discrimination when it come to politics.

No-one under 35 is allowed to run for president.

No-one under 30 is allowed to run for governor or senate.

No-one under 25 is allowed to run as representative of a state.

That is age discrimination, sorry if I am only trying to bring a little more balance to the equation.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: GodEmperor

See, to me its an asinine argument.

How do we know the founders actually cared to consider the impacts of modern longevity? Or perhaps they discussed it ad nauseum, and there's just no record of it.

So without knowing any of the above, using the term "the founding fathers never considered X in the modern age" is really just a simple hyperbole that is made up like any other hyperbole.

That little pet peeve aside, Im not sure the ill condition of one candidate would be justification for amending the constitution. In fact, allowing The Great Circus of 2016 to be a catalyst for legislation just seems like a bad idea in general.


Hey, if history didn't record it, it didn't happen, for argument sake.

The Founder's also did not have the scientific understanding of a general degradation of mental acuity for an age category that was remarkably rare in those days.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

Well, if we are being honest....a good number of the people we consider "founding fathers" were 20 somethings (if even that) in 1776. Bunch of damn idealistic hippies.



Andrew Jackson wan't even 10 years old at the time, but he's lumped into "the founding fathers".

But to temper this a bit, Ben Franklin (considered by most both now and then to be the smartest man alive during the time) was 70, well seasoned, and anything but naive.

And i'd bet that Franklin was all too aware of what time can do to your mind.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Term limits Not age limits.

The problem is politicians that decided to make lifetime commitments to screw people over.

That is where the problem is.


Heres a first , but yea what neo said,
term limits should be put in law 8 years max.

Hell just froze over i agree with neo.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Hey, there are exceptions to every rule.

Why is it ok for a 70 year old to run for office, yet a 20 year old is barred?

What if the 20-something is the exact person needed for the task at hand?

If we are going to be against setting age limits and age discrimination, why is it ok to disenfranchise millions of younger Americans from running for office?



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: GodEmperor

good point, there already is age discrimination in politics discriminating against the young people so age discrimination against the old people wouldn`t be setting any earth shattering precedence.

everyone under the age of 35 is banned by law from running for or being the president.



neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years

www.presidentsusa.net...


edit on 5-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Hey, there are exceptions to every rule.

Why is it ok for a 70 year old to run for office, yet a 20 year old is barred?

What if the 20-something is the exact person needed for the task at hand?

If we are going to be against setting age limits and age discrimination, why is it ok to disenfranchise millions of younger Americans from running for office?


I don't know why it doesn't work both ways....but as a 45 year old man I am very thankful that a 20something is ineligible for the Oval Office.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
However old John McCain is should be the cutoff point. Forced retirement at that point.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I disagree. While I'm completely in favor of term limits, I can't support age limits. That sounds too much like age discrimination for my taste, and at any rate, I'd rather have a sensible 80 year old in Congress than a 45 year old fool.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ohanka
However old John McCain is should be the cutoff point. Forced retirement at that point.



I agree on his fitness to serve.

The thing is, the people of Arizona keep electing him. We should blame them. The mechanism that is in place is voting, which is not being used by the people in charge of using it.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I all in! Mandatory retirement for EVERYONE At 55 years of age AND we cut the Defense budget to fund £3000. a month for every adult legal citizen, no questions asked!



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
That would be discrimination based on age. It's a no no thing.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
George Washington was 57 yo when he became President and 66 yo when he became the Sr Military officer (again) in the US.

Ben Franklin started political service (in Penn) at age 58 and finished with politics at age 82. He was appointed as the ambassador to Sweden at age 77.

I find your premise flawed.



posted on Jan, 5 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
The Founding Fathers never anticipated a population with a life expectancy of 70+ years. The average age of a politician in the early era of America, was mid-40's; since that time it has hurtled upwards into the 60's.


I don't agree.

I think I'm far wiser and more capable of making important decisions today, then even 10 years ago.

Comparing myself today to how I thought when I was 40? Gawd what a child I was in comparison. Hadn't even really lived yet. Really ignorant about the world and people.

Out of touch? With what?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join