American Presidents Thread I: What Went Wrong?

[The Archregimancy]

Perhaps this is the right moment to gently remind you young whippersnappers that some people floating around the forums are over 50.

Unimaginably ancient though we might be to many of you, I'd posit that we're not wholly lacking in mental acuity.

Surely that means we can hear your opinions on old US Presidents, I'm quite curious actually

I'm sorry, but as I'm over 50 I obviously don't have anything useful to share in NSG as I'm 'out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues', as outlined here:

Gerontocracy, regardless of country, is a terrible idea in general. Anyone older than 50 should not be holding any kind of office. The elderly--especially elderly politicians--are very often out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues and the modern solutions needed to meet them.

[San Lumen]

Gerontocracy, regardless of country, is a terrible idea in general. Anyone older than 50 should not be holding any kind of office. The elderly--especially elderly politicians--are very often out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues and the modern solutions needed to meet them.

This is a such wrong statement. A blanket ban on anyone over 50 would be unconstitutional and a form of discrimination.

[Port Caverton]

Gerontocracy, regardless of country, is a terrible idea in general. Anyone older than 50 should not be holding any kind of office. The elderly--especially elderly politicians--are very often out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues and the modern solutions needed to meet them.

Yeah, that is shit take and ageist AF. Millennials and Zoomers have to learn to learn to relate to older generations. Older generations have been making an effort, by embracing new technologies and new social constructs. Millennials and zoomers can learn some basic fucking respect.

Most 50 year olds still have their mental faculties. They also have the life experience that is needed for elected office

Hell I'd say if you picked the median Gen Z student, you would get a moderate conservative w/ an isolationist foreign policy and not a leftist. So this wouldn't fix the problem that sordhau has.

[Makko Oko]

I've seen some of the big threads here and I'd like to try and start one of my own, specifically about the American Presidential system. I'm going to start it off with one of my questions, do any of you think, honestly, that old people should be barred from the presidency to make way for younger candidates?

I have some prime examples here, how about President Eisenhower, who in the fall of 1955, died of a heart attack and who can forget President Jackson who died in 1837 from congestive heart failure, and not to mention he had multiple problems including rotting teeth, failing eyesight, internal bleeding in the lungs, etc.

No age should not be factor if you can run or not.

Eisenhower did not die in office in 1955. He died in 1969 of heart failure.

Andrew Jackson died in 1845 of chronic dropsy and heart failure.

Where did you learn your history?

And that is what I like to call, inaccurate history (I mean mine, not yours). Admittedly, I did not vet the information I found, and nor did I look very long (wasn't entirely interested in that aspect of it), but to answer your question, I didn't 'learn' it, I googled it just to give some context. I can edit it regardless. My apologies for the confusion, just more proof the internet is a widespread source of disinformation.

[Makko Oko]

Gerontocracy, regardless of country, is a terrible idea in general. Anyone older than 50 should not be holding any kind of office. The elderly--especially elderly politicians--are very often out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues and the modern solutions needed to meet them.

This is a such wrong statement. A blanket ban on anyone over 50 would be unconstitutional and a form of discrimination.

Would any ban on ages be discrimination? I mean...if we're going to delve into discrimination then technically, that's already happening because you have to be at least 35 to even be considered to be put on the ballot. If that's not age discrimination, I don't know what is.

[San Lumen]

No age should not be factor if you can run or not.

Eisenhower did not die in office in 1955. He died in 1969 of heart failure.

Andrew Jackson died in 1845 of chronic dropsy and heart failure.

Where did you learn your history?

And that is what I like to call, inaccurate history (I mean mine, not yours). Admittedly, I did not vet the information I found, and nor did I look very long (wasn't entirely interested in that aspect of it), but to answer your question, I didn't 'learn' it, I googled it just to give some context. I can edit it regardless. My apologies for the confusion, just more proof the internet is a widespread source of disinformation.

This is why you should get information from reliable sources. Why is Eisenhower and Jackson relevant when they died many years after leaving office?

This is a such wrong statement. A blanket ban on anyone over 50 would be unconstitutional and a form of discrimination.

Would any ban on ages be discrimination? I mean...if we're going to delve into discrimination then technically, that's already happening because you have to be at least 35 to even be considered to be put on the ballot. If that's not age discrimination, I don't know what is.

I think once you can vote you should be able to run for any office.

[PhilTech]

I'm going to start it off with one of my questions, do any of you think, honestly, that old people should be barred from the presidency to make way for younger candidates?

Politics is all about soft skills and charisma, and usually not won by factual basis.

People of age are inherently seen as having more experience/maturity --- more "likable". The way I see it is that barring old people from leadership roles is nothing but progressives' illusive dream of governance.

And this is coming from a guy in his early 20s...

[San Lumen]

I'm going to start it off with one of my questions, do any of you think, honestly, that old people should be barred from the presidency to make way for younger candidates?

Politics is all about soft skills and charisma, and usually not won by factual basis.

People of age are inherently seen as having more experience/maturity --- more "likable". The way I see it is that barring old people from leadership roles is nothing but progressives' illusive dream of governance.

And this is coming from a guy in his early 20s...

Agreed. I think an executive should be someone experienced but if a high school senior wants to run for mayor, county executive or governor let them.

[Antipatros]

Gerontocracy, regardless of country, is a terrible idea in general. Anyone older than 50 should not be holding any kind of office. The elderly--especially elderly politicians--are very often out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues and the modern solutions needed to meet them.

A little too hard of a take, IMO. Young doesn't automatically mean good. In fact, one of the most embarrassing members of Congress (Cawthorn) was also its youngest.

I do agree that our national leadership skews way too old, though. It's also pretty obvious that many of them don't care about issues that aren't going to impact them directly (social insurance programs being unsustainable in the long run, climate change, etc.)

[San Lumen]

Gerontocracy, regardless of country, is a terrible idea in general. Anyone older than 50 should not be holding any kind of office. The elderly--especially elderly politicians--are very often out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues and the modern solutions needed to meet them.

A little too hard of a take, IMO. Young doesn't automatically mean good. In fact, one of the most embarrassing members of Congress (Cawthorn) was also its youngest.

I do agree that our national leadership skews way too old, though. It's also pretty obvious that many of them don't care about issues that aren't going to impact them directly (social insurance programs being unsustainable in the long run, climate change, etc.)

Vote for new people then. That’s what elections are for.

[Antipatros]

A little too hard of a take, IMO. Young doesn't automatically mean good. In fact, one of the most embarrassing members of Congress (Cawthorn) was also its youngest.

I do agree that our national leadership skews way too old, though. It's also pretty obvious that many of them don't care about issues that aren't going to impact them directly (social insurance programs being unsustainable in the long run, climate change, etc.)

Vote for new people then. That’s what elections are for.

Easier said than done.

[Makko Oko]

And that is what I like to call, inaccurate history (I mean mine, not yours). Admittedly, I did not vet the information I found, and nor did I look very long (wasn't entirely interested in that aspect of it), but to answer your question, I didn't 'learn' it, I googled it just to give some context. I can edit it regardless. My apologies for the confusion, just more proof the internet is a widespread source of disinformation.

This is why you should get information from reliable sources. Why is Eisenhower and Jackson relevant when they died many years after leaving office?

Would any ban on ages be discrimination? I mean...if we're going to delve into discrimination then technically, that's already happening because you have to be at least 35 to even be considered to be put on the ballot. If that's not age discrimination, I don't know what is.

I think once you can vote you should be able to run for any office.

To answer #1, I just thought I'd give examples of problems old Presidents faced, but being incorrect, yeah...but enough of that topic lol, like you said, not relevant.

For #2, I quote from usa.gov (reliable source, before I used .com sites because I was lazy, don't judge me):

According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the United States for 14 years.

While you may only need to be of voting age for most political positions, for the President role specifically, that does not apply.

[San Lumen]

This is why you should get information from reliable sources. Why is Eisenhower and Jackson relevant when they died many years after leaving office?



I think once you can vote you should be able to run for any office.

To answer #1, I just thought I'd give examples of problems old Presidents faced, but being incorrect, yeah...but enough of that topic lol, like you said, not relevant.

For #2, I quote from usa.gov (reliable source, before I used .com sites because I was lazy, don't judge me):

According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the United States for 14 years.

While you may only need to be of voting age for most political positions, for the President role specifically, that does not apply.

The last president to die in office of natural causes was FDR in 1945.

[Makko Oko]

To answer #1, I just thought I'd give examples of problems old Presidents faced, but being incorrect, yeah...but enough of that topic lol, like you said, not relevant.

For #2, I quote from usa.gov (reliable source, before I used .com sites because I was lazy, don't judge me):

According to Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the United States for 14 years.

While you may only need to be of voting age for most political positions, for the President role specifically, that does not apply.

The last president to die in office of natural causes was FDR in 1945.

Oddly enough, that was during WW2, the last year of it at least

[The Alma Mater]

Vote for new people then. That’s what elections are for.

Easier said than done.

Hence why we should embrace the lottery. Every adult citizen who want to be president for four years can enter.

[Makko Oko]

Easier said than done.

Hence why we should embrace the lottery. Every adult citizen who want to be president for four years can enter.

I find that idea very odd...and almost scary...because what if a totalitarian happens to win? Nothing we can do, we had no say in it

[San Lumen]

Vote for new people then. That’s what elections are for.

Easier said than done.

If you don’t like whose running than run for said office yourself. Start with local office or state legislature.

[Antipatros]

Easier said than done.

Hence why we should embrace the lottery. Every adult citizen who want to be president for four years can enter.

I've considered something like that for Congress.

We axe the Senate, change the House over to proportional representation, and then create a new chamber made up of randomly selected citizens. Would be entertaining, at least.

[The Alma Mater]

Hence why we should embrace the lottery. Every adult citizen who want to be president for four years can enter.

I find that idea very odd...and almost scary...because what if a totalitarian happens to win? Nothing we can do, we had no say in it

You act like that does not happen with voting.

[The Alma Mater]

Hence why we should embrace the lottery. Every adult citizen who want to be president for four years can enter.

I've considered something like that for Congress.

We axe the Senate, change the House over to proportional representation, and then create a new chamber made up of randomly selected citizens. Would be entertaining, at least.

Citizens that have indicated an interest in the position, or all citizens - like with jury duty?

[Makko Oko]

I find that idea very odd...and almost scary...because what if a totalitarian happens to win? Nothing we can do, we had no say in it

You act like that does not happen with voting.

Given the Electoral College, you have a fair point. They just up and decide who won with no regard to legality of their actions. Funny fact, Hillary won the 2016 election but due to the Electoral College, gave their votes to Trump and made him win. Needless to say, the majority did not ask for Trump.

[San Lumen]

You act like that does not happen with voting.

Given the Electoral College, you have a fair point. They just up and decide who won with no regard to legality of their actions. Funny fact, Hillary won the 2016 election but due to the Electoral College, gave their votes to Trump and made him win. Needless to say, the majority did not ask for Trump.

They could have overturned it but they were partisan hacks.

[Sordhau]

Gerontocracy, regardless of country, is a terrible idea in general. Anyone older than 50 should not be holding any kind of office. The elderly--especially elderly politicians--are very often out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues and the modern solutions needed to meet them.

Terrible take. Out-of-touch politicians aren't out-of-touch because they're old (many of them are quite young), they're out of touch because they're corrupt. Fill Congress with randomly selected boomers and I guarantee a better outcome than the current system. Besides, even if most old people were out-of-touch, why should we bar the few who aren't from holding office?

Being corrupt and being out-of-touch are mutually exclusive.

The corrupt, by definition, do not care. They cannot be out-of-touch because being out-of-touch is a state of ignorance. Corruption, by contrast, is a state of apathy. Those who are out-of-touch may very well care about the issues but are simply too ignorant to properly address them, whereas the corrupt don't care at all and are only in it for themselves. The reason older people in government are out-of-touch isn't solely because they're all corrupt but because they look at modern problems through the lens of past experiences and attempts to apply old solutions rather than try something new. Bernie Sanders, for example, is a good man who means well. But he's still out-of-touch. He's a man in his 70s whose been fighting for Social Democracy all his life. In the 60s that would've been fine, but in spite of it's fierce lionization by Liberals (Europeans especially) Social Democracy isn't a solution to our problems. System reform doesn't matter when society itself is centered so far to the Right that social attitudes balk at SocDems as if they were the second coming of Pol Pot. I used to support Bernie, but I can't do that anyone because even though he is an honest man his ideas aren't going to fix America. He understands the issues at least, he just has unrealistic goals to fixing them.

As for barring the few who aren't from holding office, well... mandating people take tests to determine how corrupt and out-of-touch they are before taking office is a rather pointless bureaucratic gesture that just ties down resources which could be better used elsewhere.

Perhaps this is the right moment to gently remind you young whippersnappers that some people floating around the forums are over 50.

Unimaginably ancient though we might be to many of you, I'd posit that we're not wholly lacking in mental acuity.

There are exceptions to every rule. But generally speaking I have yet to meet anyone in their 50s or older (present company excluded, of course) who is well-versed in modern politics. And, for the record, none of those people were even politicians. That doesn't mean every young person I've met knew what they were talking about - one of the dumbest people I know is a 20 something from California who unironically calls Democrats "Communists" - just that they're generally better informed than their elders.

[Antipatros]

I've considered something like that for Congress.

We axe the Senate, change the House over to proportional representation, and then create a new chamber made up of randomly selected citizens. Would be entertaining, at least.

Citizens that have indicated an interest in the position, or all citizens - like with jury duty?

There's arguments for both.

If you limit it to those who are interested, that body of people is inevitably going to look different than the general population.

If you put all eligible adults into the pool, you're going to be forcing people to engage in this process against their will.

With juries, we select people at random, then we go through a jury selection process whereby jurors can be dismissed according to a set of rules. That could be another option.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Gerontocracy, regardless of country, is a terrible idea in general. Anyone older than 50 should not be holding any kind of office. The elderly--especially elderly politicians--are very often out-of-touch with society and incapable of grasping modern issues and the modern solutions needed to meet them.

Yeah, that is shit take and ageist AF. Millennials and Zoomers have to learn to learn to relate to older generations. Older generations have been making an effort, by embracing new technologies and new social constructs. Millennials and zoomers can learn some basic fucking respect.

Most 50 year olds still have their mental faculties. They also have the life experience that is needed for elected office

Look at the boomer memes on Facebook for example that serve to indiscriminately piss on younger generations.

Fuck the "respect" you think we aught to have.