It Is Time For A President Under 70

[mark46]

I understand that we are more healthy at older and older ages. I understand that experience is helpful in performing difficult tasks, and that wisdom comes with age.

No one was older than Trump when elected as to his first term as president.
========
Bush Senior was the last of the WWII era. A new generation ruled for the next 4 terms. Clinton and Bush are now both in their 70's. I suppose that Biden or Gore or Kerry could run again; we could have the newcomers Warren and Sanders.
========
With little bias against my generation: I am the age of Clinton and Bush), I think that it is time to turn over leadership to a new generation, to the post Vietnam leaders.

There are many candidates in both parties being held back by the elderly.
==========
My gut feel is that the Democrats will fail in 2020 by moving to the far left of the American electorate.

My (I think reasonable) hope is to see Trump resign and see a President Haley.

 

[dogs4thewin]

I understand that we are more healthy at older and older ages. I understand that experience is helpful in performing difficult tasks, and that wisdom comes with age.

No one was older than Trump when elected as to his first term as president.
========
Bush Senior was the last of the WWII era. A new generation ruled for the next 4 terms. Clinton and Bush are now both in their 70's. I suppose that Biden or Gore or Kerry could run again; we could have the newcomers Warren and Sanders.
========
With little bias against my generation: I am the age of Clinton and Bush), I think that it is time to turn over leadership to a new generation, to the post Vietnam leaders.

There are many candidates in both parties being held back by the elderly.
==========
My gut feel is that the Democrats will fail in 2020 by moving to the far left of the American electorate.

My (I think reasonable) hope is to see Trump resign and see a President Haley.

Unless they plan to have a max age limit really there is nothing that can be done in terms of that. If people feel that the elderly ( for whatever reason are better suited to be president they will vote for them.

 

[mark46]

NONSENSE!

Of course there is something that can be done.

The parties can nominate people under 70. The voters can elect someone under 70.

We don't need max age limits any more than we need max term limits. The voters can make that decision.
=====
It is the voters that will decide in the primaries, and in the general election.

Unless they plan to have a max age limit really there is nothing that can be done in terms of that. If people feel that the elderly ( for whatever reason are better suited to be president they will vote for them.

 

[dogs4thewin]

NONSENSE!

Of course there is something that can be done.

The parties can nominate people under 70. The voters can elect someone under 70.

We don't need max age limits any more than we need max term limits. The voters can make that decision.
=====
It is the voters that will decide in the primaries, and in the general election.

BUT if the people decide in the primities over 70 then of course unless you have a third party that somehow makes it you will keep having people over 70.

 

[RDKirk]

I understand that we are more healthy at older and older ages. I understand that experience is helpful in performing difficult tasks, and that wisdom comes with age.

No one was older than Trump when elected as to his first term as president.
========
Bush Senior was the last of the WWII era. A new generation ruled for the next 4 terms. Clinton and Bush are now both in their 70's. I suppose that Biden or Gore or Kerry could run again; we could have the newcomers Warren and Sanders.
========
With little bias against my generation: I am the age of Clinton and Bush), I think that it is time to turn over leadership to a new generation, to the post Vietnam leaders.

There are many candidates in both parties being held back by the elderly.
==========
My gut feel is that the Democrats will fail in 2020 by moving to the far left of the American electorate.

My (I think reasonable) hope is to see Trump resign and see a President Haley.

I totally agree that no more Boomers should be elected president.

There's got to be X-gen Iraq veterans, male and female, who can run from either party. The problem is that the old party kingpins are, indeed, holding on to their power, like the old Soviets did, and not deliberately mentoring successors to replace them.

 

[SeventyOne]

I understand that we are more healthy at older and older ages. I understand that experience is helpful in performing difficult tasks, and that wisdom comes with age.

No one was older than Trump when elected as to his first term as president.
========
Bush Senior was the last of the WWII era. A new generation ruled for the next 4 terms. Clinton and Bush are now both in their 70's. I suppose that Biden or Gore or Kerry could run again; we could have the newcomers Warren and Sanders.
========
With little bias against my generation: I am the age of Clinton and Bush), I think that it is time to turn over leadership to a new generation, to the post Vietnam leaders.

There are many candidates in both parties being held back by the elderly.
==========
My gut feel is that the Democrats will fail in 2020 by moving to the far left of the American electorate.

My (I think reasonable) hope is to see Trump resign and see a President Haley.

Technically, they've all been under 70 when first elected, with the exception on the current President.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"70" is the new "50". What's the problem?

 

[Albion]

Apologies. Wrong forum.

 

[archer75]

I understand that we are more healthy at older and older ages. I understand that experience is helpful in performing difficult tasks, and that wisdom comes with age.

No one was older than Trump when elected as to his first term as president.
========
Bush Senior was the last of the WWII era. A new generation ruled for the next 4 terms. Clinton and Bush are now both in their 70's. I suppose that Biden or Gore or Kerry could run again; we could have the newcomers Warren and Sanders.
========
With little bias against my generation: I am the age of Clinton and Bush), I think that it is time to turn over leadership to a new generation, to the post Vietnam leaders.

There are many candidates in both parties being held back by the elderly.
==========
My gut feel is that the Democrats will fail in 2020 by moving to the far left of the American electorate.

My (I think reasonable) hope is to see Trump resign and see a President Haley.

I think there is no chance the Democrats will move to the far left. I just don't see it happening; they don't support lefty policies, they just use the Left when it's convenient. Just like last time - the DNC decided it would rather lose with Clinton than win with Sanders.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I think there is no chance the Democrats will move to the far left. I just don't see it happening; they don't support lefty policies, they just use the Left when it's convenient. Just like last time - the DNC decided it would rather lose with Clinton than win with Sanders.

But Oh how I wish there was a gigantic money tree behind the White House. A Sanders presidency would have been a hoot.

 

[RDKirk]

Actually, age isn't the real point, except indirectly.

The fact is that the United States today is a whole different planet from the nation the Boomer Generation was raised in. But Boomer politicians are still fighting the "transition wars"---particularly those of race and sex--and they are still squaring off as the same enemies as they were back on that old planet.

When faced with new modern challenges of this new planet, they address them by merely dropping them into the same old categories they used back on the old planet. So "Global Warming" and "National Health Care" and even "alternative energy sources" simply get dropped into the "Socialism" bucket, for instance.

Now, age isn't the real point because some Boomers have adapted to the new planet. But what we see in Congress is a continuation of a war that began on another planet, like the Autobots versus the Decepticons. And it will go on until we Boomers are dead.

I just hope we haven't wreaked too much devastation on this new planet before that happens.

 

[mark46]

In the US, Sanders is far left, and he would have lost by 20%.

So, it is a matter of definition. There are many Democrats well to the left of the center of American politics, which center is of course center-right. While Medicare for all is a centrist position elsewhere in the world, in the US it is a leftist position. The Democratic Party has already made this position a requirement. Personally, I believe that this is a good idea. The lefties also want to spend the next 2 years in committees and impeachment hearings. Centrist Pelosi will stop much of this nonsense, but not all of it.

We'll see. To win, the Democrats need a candidate at the right of their party. Such a candidate would still be to left of the center of the electorate as a whole, but that's fine, given just how bad Trump is.

I think there is no chance the Democrats will move to the far left. I just don't see it happening; they don't support lefty policies, they just use the Left when it's convenient. Just like last time - the DNC decided it would rather lose with Clinton than win with Sanders.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Actually, age isn't the real point, except indirectly.

The fact is that the United States today is a whole different planet from the nation the Boomer Generation was raised in. But Boomer politicians are still fighting the "transition wars"---particularly those of race and sex--and they are still squaring off as the same enemies as they were back on that old planet.

When faced with new modern challenges of this new planet, they address them by merely dropping them into the same old categories they used back on the old planet. So "Global Warming" and "National Health Care" and even "alternative energy sources" simply get dropped into the "Socialism" bucket, for instance.

Now, age isn't the real point because some Boomers have adapted to the new planet. But what we see in Congress is a continuation of a war that began on another planet, like the Autobots versus the Decepticons. And it will go on until we Boomers are dead.

I just hope we haven't wreaked too much devastation on this new planet before that happens.

I'm afraid that whatever is left of the national character is circling the drain, especially our leadership.

 

[archer75]

In the US, Sanders is far left, and he would have lost by 20%.

So, it is a matter of definition. There are many Democrats well to the left of the center of American politics, which center is of course center-right. While Medicare for all is a centrist position elsewhere in the world, in the US it is a leftist position. The Democratic Party has already made this position a requirement. Personally, I believe that this is a good idea. The lefties also want to spend the next 2 years in committees and impeachment hearings. Centrist Pelosi will stop much of this nonsense, but not all of it.

We'll see. To win, the Democrats need a candidate at the right of their party. Such a candidate would still be to left of the center of the electorate as a whole, but that's fine, given just how bad Trump is.

Sanders is "far left" only if you look only at the political beliefs represented on TV.

That said, I believe Sanders would have picked up the entire Democratic base, plus some who voted for Trump, plus some actual socialists, and would easily have carried the popular vote and electoral college.

 

[mark46]

There are lots and lots of Democrats who have stayed home rather than vote for Sanders.

In any case, your beliefs are common to many in the Democratic Party, and your beliefs are likely to carry the day. The party is likely to nominate someone of the political position of Sanders, and then lose to whoever the Republicans nominate. This groups believe that Sanders (and the others who are close to him politically) are in the center with regard to American politics and is able to draw from the Republicans.

IMHO, that belief will lead to severe defeat as it did with McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis. The party seems incapable of learning. The party has won with Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama. Those on the right believe that Obama was a far left liberal. Democrats understand that this wasn't case for the Deporter in Chief who favored drones, and who instituted Romneycare.

We'll see.

Sanders is "far left" only if you look only at the political beliefs represented on TV.

That said, I believe Sanders would have picked up the entire Democratic base, plus some who voted for Trump, plus some actual socialists, and would easily have carried the popular vote and electoral college.

 

[archer75]

There are lots and lots of Democrats who have stayed home rather than vote for Sanders.

In any case, your beliefs are common to many in the Democratic Party, and your beliefs are likely to carry the day. The party is likely to nominate someone of the political position of Sanders, and then lose to whoever the Republicans nominate. This groups believe that Sanders (and the others who are close to him politically) are in the center with regard to American politics and is able to draw from the Republicans.

IMHO, that belief will lead to severe defeat as it did with McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis. The party seems incapable of learning. The party has won with Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama. Those on the right believe that Obama was a far left liberal. Democrats understand that this wasn't case for the Deporter in Chief who favored drones, and who instituted Romneycare.

We'll see.

I don't think Sanders would have picked up Republicans, but would have picked up independents (probably a lot) who voted for Trump purely because they hated Clinton.

 

[RDKirk]

Sanders is "far left" only if you look only at the political beliefs represented on TV.

That said, I believe Sanders would have picked up the entire Democratic base, plus some who voted for Trump, plus some actual socialists, and would easily have carried the popular vote and electoral college.

In military polls, Sanders was neck-and-neck with Trump, and far ahead of any other Republicans. Soldiers are generally not liberal, but a heck of a lot are independent.

 

[LOLMark]

Trump is our oldest president but he acts like the youngest. That is a good thing.

 

[mark46]

Trump is our oldest president but he acts like the youngest. That is a good thing.

How is it good for a president to think, speak, analyze and act as a 4th grader would?

 

[Albion]

I don't think Sanders would have picked up Republicans, but would have picked up independents (probably a lot) who voted for Trump purely because they hated Clinton.

Could be. On the other hand, however, candidates often do not get the close examination during the primaries that they get between the national conventions and the general election. I think that Bernie's socialist sympathies would have become a hot issue after he had vanquished the other contenders and was standing alone.

There is no doubt that the Clinton machine and the Party leadership in general took it easy on Bernie because 1) they did not want to alienate his supporters for later on and 2) they were confident that the nominating convention was wired for Hillary anyway. The result, in other words, could have been for Bernie's fortunes to have gone the other way if he had won the nomination of the party.