Let's Get Real regarding Term Limits/Age Requirements/Lobbyist

#28
#28
McDad said:
Life expectancy is a misnomer. Large infant mortality numbers is the factor creating the "35 year life expectancy ".
Click to expand...
Life Expectancy then vs now completely different, I understand. The human body deteriorating at the Age of 70 begins to take over the Mind, physical, and mental Processes. Memory shot as well. Not in all but a majority...I guess that is why we send soldiers to retirement at young ages.
You can't run for certain offices until you reach a certain age and you ought not to able to stay or enter in office past a certain age.
 
#30
#30
Vol423 said:
We may as well discuss how great UT's football team would be in 2022 if we had Peyton Manning as our quarterback this year. It has the same likelihood of happening.
Click to expand...
Exactly the Reason that Peyton Manning is not playing in the NFL today. Reason he is not playing College Ball is because he has No Eligibility... Peyton Manning had a choice to stay and Play, take the chance and not be labeled as a has been or to walk away with grace. For the most part, he knew his time was up and he could not be the contributor from the field he once was but could still participate from the Sidelines or the Stands.
This is the blockage that Politicians have in their mindset.
 
#32
#32
Sudden Impact said:
Life Expectancy then vs now completely different, I understand. The human body deteriorating at the Age of 70 begins to take over the Mind, physical, and mental Processes. Memory shot as well. Not in all but a majority...I guess that is why we send soldiers to retirement at young ages.
You can't run for certain offices until you reach a certain age and you ought not to able to stay or enter in office past a certain age.
Click to expand...
I understand the premise.

Just clarifying once infant mortality removed from the equation the life expectancy, on average, isnt radically different. It is improved but not double.
 
#33
#33
volinbham said:
Are you against all qualifiers? Why not let 16 year olds run if you feel one would represent your interests?
Click to expand...
Let them run, raise the money, let the voters decide that they are going to choose a 16 yr old to serve in their best interests and that that person has enough experience to do so... NO. There are age limits to serve. A 16 year old does not have the life experiences to serve 700,000 you will be lucky if you can find a 16 year old that can balance a checkbook.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#34
#34
Sudden Impact said:
Exactly the Reason that Peyton Manning is not playing in the NFL today. Reason he is not playing College Ball is because he has No Eligibility... Peyton Manning had a choice to stay and Play, take the chance and not be labeled as a has been or to walk away with grace. For the most part, he knew his time was up and he could not be the contributor from the field he once was but could still participate from the Sidelines or the Stands.
This is the blockage that Politicians have in their mindset.
Click to expand...
There is ZERO chance of new term limits being imposed. Why? No politicians want to place limits on themselves. In addition, opening up the Constitution to potential changes with this many socialists now inhabiting Congress is EXTREMELY dangerous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom and McDad
#35
#35
I don’t see how a rule that no family member can run and hold a seat would fly. People are now marrying trees, dogs, video game characters, and Barbie dolls. A family member is pretty subjective.
 
#37
#37
Physical, cognitive and emotional tests after a certain age are better than an age to determine ability to serve.
 
#40
#40
McDad said:
Physical, cognitive and emotional tests after a certain age are better than an age to determine ability to serve.
Click to expand...

I wonder which party would become obsessed with controlling which scores pass/fail? I have the same issue with gun control and mental health. One party in particular would weaponize the process of determining who is psychologically fit. They’ve already made a mockery of impeachments and the DOJ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol423 and McDad
#41
#41
Sudden Impact said:
Rip away...The founding fathers did not anticipate that the Life Expectancy of an American would double. They also did not conceive that a Member would serve longer than the Life Expectancy.
Click to expand...

They probably didn't envision everyone walking around with weapons of war either but thats for another thread....
 
#43
#43
ClearwaterVol said:
I don't have much of an issue with any except I would say no running again.
Click to expand...
I would agree with CWV for once. The only exception to your proposal is that with the doubling of life expectancy comes mental acuity at 70 also. There would need to be a sound basis other than old people suck to place an upper age limit on the ability to run.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad and Sudden Impact
#46
#46
Thunder Good-Oil said:
I wonder which party would become obsessed with controlling which scores pass/fail? I have the same issue with gun control and mental health. One party in particular would weaponize the process of determining who is psychologically fit. They’ve already made a mockery of impeachments and the DOJ.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's what make test-based qualifiers challenging. Opportunity for corruption in creating, administering, and grading tests. No bueno.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thunder Good-Oil
#47
#47
It seems like some pretty aggressive campaign finance changes would be helpful as well. I’m certainly no fan of increased government, but expanding the fec funding to eliminate union/corporation/special interest donations would be helpful. Also, contributions only from individual (could increase limit) and only those with primary residence in the district candidate is campaigning for. Meaning someone from Kentucky can’t donate to pelosis opponent and someone from nyc can’t donate to candidate from rural upstate NY
 
#50
#50
utvolpj said:
Dogs, cats, turtles

But I'm guessing some contracts may require at least 18
Click to expand...

Isn't that the government telling you who you can vote for to represent you?

Here's a more realistic one - should the person you want to represent you have to live in the area of representation? If so why is that restriction okay but others are not?

Technically too since you can write in someone you can vote for anyone - some just can't win but your vote is not constrained
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top