I don't think there should be an upper age limit for presidency because it seems that medical science is advancing so that people will live longer, and maybe improve the quality of life for older people. For example, I watched 60 minutes a few days ago and they said how 90% of people born today will live to be 100 years old. And if 90% live to be hundred years old then I guess 30% will leave to be 150.

Have you been to a nursing home lately? A lot of them aren't so old.

Age can bring with it cognitive decline, and severe meantal deterioration, not always though. Some years ago, I worked for a moving company, one of the clients was a retired NYC fire chief. When we moved him, he was 97. He was sharp as a tack, and physically he was running circles around some of the much, much, much younger members of my crew. I realize this is a rare occurrence for someone of this age group to be so fit, both mentally and physically. I am just saying that age itself isn't necessarily the issue, it is the mental faculties. And it is those faculties that should be addressed and dealt with.

Now is the case of Biden and the bloated orange turd, Biden is certainly showing signs of an aging mind, no so much a mentally deficient one. Von Shitezenpants however, is in obvious mental decline. I mean, he was an absolute moron before his tiny peanut began to shrivel, but it is shriveling nonetheless.

The average lifespan in the 1700s was under 40. When the minimum was set at 35 that was just another expression of how we didn't believe that anyone -but- the oldest white property holding men should be in charge.

For what it’s worth, I can remember once reading that, in Shakespeare’s day, only 1 in every 10 Londoners born lived to see the age of 40. I don’t know how much that changed 200 years later, and in a different part of the world. I suspect it might have been a bit better, but not by that much.

(July 12, 2024 at 9:58 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The average lifespan in the 1700s was under 40.  When the minimum was set at 35 that was just another expression of how we didn't believe that anyone -but- the oldest white property holding men should be in charge.

When my pop's turned 35 I wished him a happy hump birthday, the life expectancy for men was 70 years at that time. He was not pleased.

(July 12, 2024 at 9:58 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: The average lifespan in the 1700s was under 40.  When the minimum was set at 35 that was just another expression of how we didn't believe that anyone -but- the oldest white property holding men should be in charge.

That’s a little misleading. A white, property owning male who was 50 years old in 1789 had a life expectancy of 71 years. The ‘life expectancy under 40’ factors in high infant and child mortality. The low life expectancy for adults in general was heavily skewed by the number of people who spent short, unhappy lives harvesting turnips and digging cesspits. The richers did much, much better.



Boru

There is way too much variance between individuals to make such a thing practical or desirable.

William Shatner is 93 and still sharp. When I lived in the Florida Keys, a 68-year-old lady shot at lobster divers in the canal near to where her house was located. She mistook them for aliens. Within the previous year, she had called the police complaining that there was a spaceship in the canal. They probably should have reevaluated her gun permit at that point but I digress.

It might be more workable to require a battery of mental checks for the President at regular intervals.

I should remind everyone that we went through this with Ronald Reagan in his second term. He was beginning to show Alzheimer's symptoms and there was concern that he was making decisions based on the first lady's astrological predictions. I believe he volunteered for tests and passed them easily. It didn't come out to the general public until years later though.

(July 12, 2024 at 10:46 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: For what it’s worth, I can remember once reading that, in Shakespeare’s day, only 1 in every 10 Londoners born lived to see the age of 40. I don’t know how much that changed 200 years later, and in a different part of the world. I suspect it might have been a bit better, but not by that much.

It remained the same for the majority of the population over that period, but major gains were made by and concentrated in wealth so that, for example..a good amount of the founders and first reps ended up making it to their 80's.  I cant recall the title, but I read a great book about how, in their time, that added to the socio-political gravitas they would hold.  Being in charge for two full generations of your constituency is a hell of a perch.

I guess with the concept of an upper age limit, there are some things to think about. Not everyone mentally declines at the same rate or even at all. The same with physical issues.

I know people much younger who make me wonder how in the hell they found their way out of their house in the morning. Yet my grandmother was into her 80s and sharp as a tack. An aunt I recently visited is in her mid-80s (and physically quite unwell) and I would put her memory and intelligence up against almost anyone. She's been blind for decades so her memory is super important as is her attention to detail.

There will always be outliers. Younger and older. But as for age alone being the determining factor, I am not real good with that.