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.

 

Why do you have to be 35 to run for president?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 



They want them old and cynical, so they won't stir things up. Beaten down, used to the system.

At 35 you have one foot in the grave anyway, makes you easier to manipulate.



edit on 12-5-2011 by Partygirl because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 

I bet you didn't know that in a few states poor white men were not allowed to vote also.

Do you have any sources for that? I've never heard anything like that, so I just want to make sure you're telling the truth. Thanks.


He's correct about this. Here's something that'll really get your goat: originally you couldn't vote unless you were a member of the church in good standing. That was before the Constitution, though.

/TOA



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 




You want to Hold "The Office" However you cannot do your own research into something so simple.
Let me guide you grasshopper.
www.iwantmyvote.com...

Excerpt from link: 'When this country was founded, only white men with property were routinely permitted to vote'

My Query to you is this.
Explain to me why your youth has advantage over the "old people" and what Changes would you make.
What would be your top 5 priorities for the Country and why. (If you were Elected today)
Please be explicit as possible.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by The Old American
 


Ehh you are right also, except for the part where you said blacks were not allowed to vote until the ammendment.

Some states was allowing free black men to vote before the ammendent and some wasn't.

Edited to delete a portion of my post as it could be construed as hostile. Not the intent of my reply.
edit on 12-5-2011 by Becoming because: (no reason given)


True enough. However, in some states they lost the right to vote, and in New York they were only able to vote if they met stringent property requirements that were not required of whites.


Before 1820, free black men in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, Maine, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire voted on an equal basis with white men. Ironically, they lost. that right in New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania before the Civil War. In New York, black voters had to meet property ownership requirements that were removed for whites during the democratic reforms of the Jacksonian era.


The above is from Free Blacks and the Constitution. This is a good read, and gives good information about how blacks were considered under the Constitution.

/TOA



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by The Old American
 


We are saying the same thing only differantly.

I can't really say anything in reply to your post except that you are right, because you basically said the same thing I did, except you gave a state as an example of how they determined blacks could vote.



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by zillah
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 



Originally posted by syrinx high priest
you need maturity and life experience for that


Maturity?

...George W. Bush had maturity?


more than the 18 year old George W. Bush did, which of course is the point



posted on May, 12 2011 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


Its a very educated opinion.

I'm pushing 45. I am a history student and have watched society degrade for the last several decades.

Granted, there may be 10% (maybe, and thats generous) that could compare. For the most part?

Whining puss's.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   
I don't understand. So their saying they wouldn't vote for someone that young, but their not giving their reasons. Somebody explain why you wouldn't please!



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Problably because they need enough time to 'groom' the person for the role and plan all the campaign and administration etc.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Vandettas
 


The reason has been stated many, many times.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Becoming
reply to post by Vandettas
 


The reason has been stated many, many times.


None of them were good reasons though. Just your typical, young people suck rhetoric.
edit on 13-5-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by felonius
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


Its a very educated opinion.

I'm pushing 45. I am a history student and have watched society degrade for the last several decades.

Granted, there may be 10% (maybe, and thats generous) that could compare. For the most part?

Whining puss's.

So what's your solution for fixing society? Or are you just going to continue to watch and do nothing?



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Who made that rule? That seems like the dumbest rule ever, I'm 17 soon to be 18 and I wanna run, but I can't because of my age. Do you agree with that rule? And would you ever vote for someone younger than 35?

Please don't

The only good thing that could come out of a 18 year old being a president is that, maybe, just maybe, is too stubborn to become corrupt.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:18 AM
link   
double post
edit on 13/5/2011 by mbartelsm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


Nobody said young people suck.

What they said was that they are immature, lacking any expieriance and the fact that their brains aren't even fully functional are all reasons why you can't be President.

I mean, you want to be President and you don't even know the Constitution. I spent a handful of posts showing how little you know about it and even provided proof because you basically called me a liar. Instead of giving good, valid examples of why someone your age should be able to run for President, you have chosen to come across like a whining child who is told they can't have something.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by neo96
 


The constitution use to forbid women, blacks, etc from voting too. We can change that one rule.


And right there is why the age is set higher for the highest office. Can you show me where the Constitution itself forbids women, blacks, etc from voting?

Those occurred because of the culture and popular beliefs (as wrong as they were) at the time. Amendments were added to correct the culture and ensure that all rights were applied equally.

Further, the Constitution itself isn't what gives you the ability to vote, recognizing that the right to vote is held by the individual as per the Ninth Amendment. The Constitution does not address voting specifically and only prohibits States from discriminating against those who were historically discriminated against.

In short, it was the people and states held back women, blacks, and various others from voting, not the Constitution.

Since you asked though, why not an 18 year old? Given the complexities of even old-world politics and the knowledge gained not just from schooling, but also from life in general, do you honestly believe if you were given the pressures of running a country you would be able to hold up?

Global politics, economies, everyone gripping at you no matter what you do, people calling you names, possible death threats, composure under extreme scrutiny, deciding the fate of lives if need be, making that crucial call, dealing with other world leaders, and on and on.

Heck, I am in my early 30s and I still am learning the battlefield that is politics and global affairs. And 18 year old might have the maturity but not the experience in life to handle the multitudes of the situations presented towards them.

Besides, that is why the House of Representatives has a much lower age limit (25) to have a broader cross section of the people who actually make the laws and run the country. The senate is the gatekeeper to the possibly younger House and is the balance to it requiring an age of 30.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by felonius
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


Its a very educated opinion.

I'm pushing 45. I am a history student and have watched society degrade for the last several decades.

Granted, there may be 10% (maybe, and thats generous) that could compare. For the most part?

Whining puss's.

So what's your solution for fixing society? Or are you just going to continue to watch and do nothing?


No.

I'm raising the next generation to be constitutional citizens.

This is a time to watch and be wary. THEY must be the first to act en masse. If "WE THE PEOPLE" act first, we are undone. Sort of a mixture between MLK/Ghandi and Malcom X/ George Washington is what we should be.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join