I agree with either that or maybe a requirement to pass at least a basic cognitive test/evaluation. At the end of the day I really don't care about the age so much as the politics and wherewithal.

I think a cognitive evaluation is better because many old people don't lose their mental abilities.

It's not just about cognitive ability. It's also about accountability. A person who holds public office should be someone who expects to live with the consequences for a long time.

I see your point. I think a lot of the issue would be taken away if we the people had more control of day to day politics beyond getting to pick the people who get to make decisions for us.

But of course for that to work people would need to agree to think beyond party politics and actually inform themselves on these issues beyond headlines.

Says a lot about the current presidency when cognitive tests and maximum age of office are brought up as topics, heh.

Yeah. I might polarize people against me by saying this lol, but I think it's an absolute injustice that Tulsi Gabbard isn't sitting in the Whitehouse this very moment. She would absolutely knock the presidency right out of the park in my opinion.

I do think she was mistreated by the media. She's a badass.

I don't know whether I agree or disagree. I think at the very least it would be prudent to experiment with some sort of standard cognitive evaluation, regardless of age. Minimum age limits make sense - a persons brain doesn't stop developing until their 20's. Maximum age limits are less substantiated but there is still an argument to be made,

The BMJ found studies that cognitive decline CAN start as soon as 45. The studies say that people aged 45-49 may have have about 3.6% cognitive declination and people aged 65-70 may have anywhere between 7.4-9.6%. Differences in education levels were taken into account.

That wasn't particularly surprising to me. What I found more interesting in the study is this -

"The authors argue that robust evidence showing cognitive decline before the age of 60 has important ramifications because it demonstrates the importance of promoting healthy lifestyles, particularly cardiovascular health, as there is emerging evidence that “what is good for our hearts is also good for our heads.”"

Perhaps there should also be some sort of cardiovascular training as well. May be Uncle Joe ran more when he was younger, he wouldn't be such bafoon.

Here's the link to the journal I found. https://www.bmj.com…

As soon as you become eligible for social security, you should be ineligible for public office. I think that is a fair rule. And if old people want to run for office, then they can stop taking out social security so early.

I'm not that against social security, but it was created so long ago and relies so much on a continually growing population, that it is no longer a stably functioning system. My reasoning behind this: it was created in 1935 when the average life expectancy was like 62, so the average person never received social security benefits. Now life expectancy is 77 so the average person is drawing off social security for 12 years.

So when the average age of senators is 64, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that old people in office is the problem with social security.