Stamina in the White House

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:02 pm

If, as now seems likely, either Hillary or Donald becomes the next President of the United States, either will be the oldest ever President at inauguration bar that senile B-movie actor who embarrassed the world during the 80s and let Ollie North run rampage.

I disapprove. Nobody should first run for the Presidency if they're past retirement age. I'd recommend a maximum age of 55 were I asked.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:17 pm

spot;1493309 wrote: If, as now seems likely, either Hilary or Donald become the next President of the United States, either will be the oldest ever President at inauguration bar that senile B-movie actor who embarrassed the world during the 80s and let Ollie North run rampage.

I disapprove. Nobody should first run for the Presidency if they're past retirement age. I'd recommend a maximum age of 55 were I asked.

I'd suggest that no-one should be eligible for the highest office who's not served time in one or other of the Houses but no-one is likely to ask me.

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:18 pm

Bryn Mawr;1493313 wrote: I'd suggest that no-one should be eligible for the highest office who's not served time in one or other of the Houses but no-one is likely to ask me.
Can a member of the Supreme Court not run for President?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:31 pm

spot;1493314 wrote: Can a member of the Supreme Court not run for President?

I would say not, it's a different world - the judiciary are polite whilst stabbing you in the back, unlike politicians.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:36 pm

2 Brits, 2 Brothers, both wrong about everything they said here:

"Presidential Eligibility

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5, UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

That's all, folks.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:58 pm

Yup. Well, if Bernie gets the job, he will be the oldest on record.

I am sure that in the late18th Century, 35 seemed relatively mature. In these days, though, I don't think that people in their 30s are really quite ready for such a position.

I am thinking 45-60 may be reasonable age range for taking on the job.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:00 pm

AnneBoleyn;1493316 wrote: 2 Brits, 2 Brothers, both wrong about everything they said here:

"Presidential Eligibility

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5, UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

That's all, folks.

Wrong? We were suggesting what we thought *should* be the case, not what we believed to be the current situation.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:07 pm

AnneBoleyn;1493316 wrote: 2 Brits, 2 Brothers, both wrong about everything they said here:

"Presidential Eligibility

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5, UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION

That's all, folks.

They ought to have a personality test written into it, that would bar Trump.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:08 pm

spot;1493314 wrote: Can a member of the Supreme Court not run for President?

Yes, a member of the Supreme Court could, theoretically, run for POTUS, but I am not sure why one of them would want the job.

They are scholars and theoreticians, for the most part. POTUS is a job for people who can process a lot of information, very quickly, and make rapid decisions which will have monumental impact on the world.

Who in his/her right mind would really want that job.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:29 pm

LarsMac;1493318 wrote: Yup. Well, if Bernie gets the job, he will be the oldest on record.

I am sure that in the late18th Century, 35 seemed relatively mature. In these days, though, I don't think that people in their 30s are really quite ready for such a position.

I am thinking 45-60 may be reasonable age range for taking on the job.

Bernie will not get the job.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:30 pm

Bryn Mawr;1493319 wrote: Wrong? We were suggesting what we thought *should* be the case, not what we believed to be the current situation.

Well, then you're speaking in fantasy, since it's not. Coulda Woulda Shoulda Land.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:33 pm

PS---I get extremely grumpy during Presidential elections. I'm liable to be a blue meany. Apologies in advance, this is your final warning.

Peace & Love

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:37 pm

AnneBoleyn;1493316 wrote: 2 Brits, 2 Brothers, both wrong about everything they said hereI wasn't attempting to disclose the existing rules, I was saying it was pitiable that you-all seem content to have anyone that age stepping into the office. And I'd be very interested to see the reaction if a judge of the Supreme Court did actually run.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 4:01 pm

spot;1493331 wrote: I wasn't attempting to disclose the existing rules, I was saying it was pitiable that you-all seem content to have anyone that age stepping into the office. And I'd be very interested to see the reaction if a judge of the Supreme Court did actually run.

It could happen to you, an old fart PM. Can't it? Just because old Bernie is running, he will not be elected, he has no chance at all. Trump & Clinton are in their sixties, sunny side of seventy. These folks are driven, these politicians, they have their wits, their health, so why should any not go for it?

Marco Rubio is the young guy & he looks like he should be wearing short pants. Big Baby, immature. Not that bright either.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:07 pm

Well, I threw my lot in with Bernie. He did very well in Colorado. Of course, so did The Donald. Far too many StormTrumpers around here. We are horribly polarized.

I have to say I am more happy that there was not a large turnout for Cruz and Rubio. Their religious authoritarian act needs to be shut down.

I am spending a lot of time sitting zen by the creek to keep my mind clear of all the garbage being tossed about by all of the candidates. And I have had to un-follow some family members who seem to delight in attacking Hilary. I am no fan of hers, by all the negativity is really frying my synaptic network.

I work, and I go drink beer with my apolitical friends. That is helping to maintain my limited grip on sanity.

This election has taken a terrible toll on the national identity.

I hope we can recover.

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:42 pm

Having Donald run may even be the tipping factor which gets a woman elected President. It's regrettable she was such a dreadful Foreign Minister but it might be interesting to see how she'll change with no boss breathing down her neck.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 5:47 pm

Lars: "I am spending a lot of time sitting zen by the creek to keep my mind clear of all the garbage being tossed about by all of the candidates. And I have had to un-follow some family members who seem to delight in attacking Hilary. I am no fan of hers, by all the negativity is really frying my synaptic network."

Sitting zen, marvelous Lars. As for Hillary, many folks I know hate her so much it is beyond reason. I can well understand not liking her, but this hatred is insane, much of it based on her not divorcing Bill over Monica. It's just crazy, it's all personal; and, like attacks on Obama that we both know are unreasonable & based on racism it is likewise for her, but the underlying cause, IMO, is sexism. Even from other women, as they are the ones who seemed most pissed, in Bill Maher's movie, was it in Religulous? Wherever, he interviewed women incensed with that.

I'll be switching to BBC news exclusively soon, that's my newsworthy way of staying zen.

PS--I am ideologically with Bernie, but I KNOW he can't win a General. I'm not dissing his ideas, but he started his campaign, HE Said, to bring Hillary to the left, then he got carried away with all the adulation, IMO. You must know this country will not be electing a socialist, & he is not a Democrat anyway, god bless him.

Post by **spot** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:00 pm

AnneBoleyn;1493337 wrote: It could happen to you, an old fart PM. Can't it?
Well, no, to be honest. Since 1721 we've had just one Prime Minister who first took office older (by a year) than Hillary or Donald would be if inaugurated, and that was ten years before your Civil War. We had one Prime Minister who was 24 when he first accepted the post.

eta: there may have been a second in 1905 who was 10 days older than Hillary would be. Doing the sums in my head made me slightly uncertain first time round, and he'd still have been younger than Donald.

Patsy Warnick · Post by **Patsy Warnick** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 9:58 pm

Let's be honest here.

With the idiot candidates running - they're leaving the door wide open for Hillary. OMG!!

The more Trump talks - the more followers he accumulates OMG !!

Bernie's too old - I don't dislike him - just fact.

So - who are we left with ? has anyone dropped out since Tuesday Night?

Patsy

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Mar 02, 2016 10:35 pm

Ben is making noise like he will be dropping, soon.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 4:54 am

It was once said that Jeremy Corbyn was an interesting character, but wouldn't stand a chance of getting to be the Party Leader. Then he goes & gets the biggest mandate ever. It was then said that his being the Party Leader would make Labour unelectable, yet Labour has gone on to win every by election since then (apart from one which went to UKIP, but even so with Labour gain of Vote share). He is now looking to be a real threat to Cameron's smug position as PM, despite what the Right Wing media say.

Jeremy supports Bernie. That's good enough a recommendation for me. But don't cast off the Underdog just because of what the media hype is. With any luck the American Public will see through Trump for the Racist Buffoon that he really is & look to the bigger issue of a candidate who has decent policies across the political board.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:18 am

Bryn Mawr;1493313 wrote: I'd suggest that no-one should be eligible for the highest office who's not served time in one or other of the Houses but no-one is likely to ask me.

Then you end up with an elite professiol poltical class/establishment with a sense of entitlement that play the game to get power. I can see why trump appeals as an outsider that says what he thinks without anyone pulling the strings. Might be ggos for america is it gets more people off their backsideds to take part in the political process. You could argue could you not that Obam was also an outsider that was hamstrung by the realities of power politocs in the US? I don't know enough to comment really.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:35 am

gmc;1493357 wrote: Then you end up with an elite professiol poltical class/establishment with a sense of entitlement that play the game to get power. I can see why trump appeals as an outsider that says what he thinks without anyone pulling the strings. Might be ggos for america is it gets more people off their backsideds to take part in the political process. You could argue could you not that Obam was also an outsider that was hamstrung by the realities of power politocs in the US? I don't know enough to comment really.

NO, what I'm suggesting is that anyone can stand to be elected but only someone who's served at least one term can take the top post - in the UK that is, de facto, the case but in the US anyone can stand for POTUS without a political background and without knowing how the houses work.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 10:21 am

Bryn Mawr;1493358 wrote: NO, what I'm suggesting is that anyone can stand to be elected but only someone who's served at least one term can take the top post - in the UK that is, de facto, the case but in the US anyone can stand for POTUS without a political background and without knowing how the houses work.

Well why shouldn't they be able to stand? The hard part is getting people to vote for you and to have it otherwise rather goes against the spirit of the declaration of independence and the constitution. Besides the point of the houses and the supreme court (which is jhy they are trying to stop obama placing a liberal minded judge to replace scalia at least that's my understanding of it) is they stand as a check against the power of the executive. In theory only congress has the authority to declare war which of trump gets in they might get around to exerting their power again.

In the UK parliament is supposed to be sovereign most of out MP's are apparatchiks looking out for their future careers

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 2:36 pm

gmc;1493365 wrote: Well why shouldn't they be able to stand? The hard part is getting people to vote for you and to have it otherwise rather goes against the spirit of the declaration of independence and the constitution. Besides the point of the houses and the supreme court (which is jhy they are trying to stop obama placing a liberal minded judge to replace scalia at least that's my understanding of it) is they stand as a check against the power of the executive. In theory only congress has the authority to declare war which of trump gets in they might get around to exerting their power again.

In the UK parliament is supposed to be sovereign most of out MP's are apparatchiks looking out for their future careers

Purely my opinion, that given the individual power invested in the President (which is of a different order to that of the PM) it would be unwise to give that power to someone totally ignorant of the inner workings of the two houses which can only be gained by experience.

Post by **spot** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 2:40 pm

I wonder why you exclude State Governors.

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 4:23 pm

spot;1493372 wrote: I wonder why you exclude State Governors.

We've had a few of those. Reagan, Bush Jr, Jimmy Carter, Teddy Roosevelt, Calvin Coolidge, Wilson, McKinley,

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 4:29 pm

franklin roosevelt

Post by **LarsMac** » Thu Mar 03, 2016 4:47 pm

AnneBoleyn;1493377 wrote: franklin roosevelt

Oh, yeah. I missed him. And Clinton.

The executive experience of governing a state may well be more useful than legislative experience.

Though several presidents made the transition from Legislator to VP, and then to POTUS.