US President Joe Biden

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

That's ridiculous.

No it isn’t. It would stop the issues of Stubborn old men, realising when they have read things totally wrong. Would have stopped, Trump/Biden’s presidency.

The leader of the free world needs to be sharp and focussed, when there is apparent cognitive impairment in older men, it’s not good needs for rest of the world, Joe Biden being the present example.

There is already enshrined in the Constitution that no one under the age of 35 can become President, then there needs to be an age restriction for latter years.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mick

No it isn’t. It would stop the issues of Stubborn old men, realising when they have read things totally wrong. Would have stopped, Trump/Biden’s presidency.

The leader of the free world needs to be sharp and focussed, when there is apparent cognitive impairment in older men, it’s not good needs for rest of the world, Joe Biden being the present example.

There is already enshrined in the Constitution that no one under the age of 35 can become President, then there needs to be an age restriction for latter years.

The broad brush approach is unreasonable. As others have said, 70 isn't a natural barrier to competence and intelligence. Wisdom also comes with age for those not as stupid as Biden.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The broad brush approach is unreasonable. As others have said, 70 isn't a natural barrier to competence and intelligence. Wisdom also comes with age for those not as stupid as Biden.

One hopes you're not basing that remark on stuff you see on here

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Carth

One hopes you're not basing that remark on stuff you see on here

Obvs, where I can judge their age. Actually, some of the cobblers from people clearly younger than 70 makes my point.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Obvs, where I can judge their age. Actually, some of the cobblers from people clearly younger than 70 makes my point.

"Obvs"? I detect a millennial amongst us!

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

"Obvs"? I detect a millennial amongst us!

Wong about Brexit, wrong about that. Plus, like "baby boomer", "Millennial" is a terrible handle to apply to a raft of people.

[Carth]

Apparently Millennials are considered to be 'anyone born between 1981 and 1996' which puts me well out *phew*

Another interesting thing is that one the names suggested for those born later - 1997 onward - is Generation Z.

Now I don't want to get too deep into this, but the zombie reference is quite remarkable, considering . .

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Carth

Apparently Millennials are considered to be 'anyone born between 1981 and 1996' which puts me well out *phew*

Another interesting thing is that one the names suggested for those born later - 1997 onward - is Generation Z.

Now I don't want to get too deep into this, but the zombie reference is quite remarkable, considering . .

It's disgraceful that a whole raft of people can be characterised in a single brush-stroke. Everyone is an individual and these artificial constructs are there for discreditable reasons.

[peanut]

I can't see him lasting too much longer now anyway. He doesn't look well at all.

He'd do better to bow out now than to make things even worse than he already has . Must be a reason to keep wheeling him out in his 'condition'.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by peanut

I can't see him lasting too much longer now anyway. He doesn't look well at all.

He'd do better to bow out now than to make things even worse than he already has . Must be a reason to keep wheeling him out in his 'condition'.

Well, the global focus is very much zero’d in on him. He’s managed to stay out the crosshairs until now but this issue is demanding attention, demanding his answers and demanding his presence and his team cannot obfuscate this.

The media can’t protect him either. I don’t see him surviving this…medically….he’ll become a liability to the democrats and they’ll have to pull him.

If he stays on and Trump decides to run again in 24……….god knows.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Obvs, where I can judge their age. Actually, some of the cobblers from people clearly younger than 70 makes my point.

No it does not. Very arrogant of you to assume age = more intelligence, it doesn’t, and we’re not talking about intelligence, we’re talking cognitive function, with age, it does slow down.

---------- Post added at 22:06 ---------- Previous post was at 21:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It's disgraceful that a whole raft of people can be characterised in a single brush-stroke. Everyone is an individual and these artificial constructs are there for discreditable reasons.

No, they are there to protect. Take the UK driving license laws. From age of 70, drivers have to renew their license every 3 years, subject to doctor approval, them telling you, you are fit to drive, did the DVLA get it wrong when choosing the age of 70 onwards?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mick

No it does not. Very arrogant of you to assume age = more intelligence, it doesn’t, and we’re not talking about intelligence, we’re talking cognitive function, with age, it does slow down.

---------- Post added at 22:06 ---------- Previous post was at 21:53 ----------



No, they are there to protect. Take the UK driving license laws. From age of 70, drivers have to renew their license every 3 years, subject to doctor approval, them telling you, you are fit to drive, did the DVLA get it wrong when choosing the age of 70 onwards?

What you refuse to allow for is that not all over-70s have cognitive problems. You wrongly call me arrogant - but you are being ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

What you refuse to allow for is that not all over-70s have cognitive problems. You wrongly call me arrogant - but you are being ridiculous.

No, you are arrogant for suggesting older people are cleverer than younger people.

Where did I say *all* over 70’s have problems?

Another question, why do you post in Blue all the time when everyone else doesn’t?

Last question, which you have conveniently copped out of from answering, does the DVLA have it wrong on the age expiration of driving licenses for people who reach the age of 70?

[nomadking]

If you don't have a clearly defined cut-off, you get the current situation of the question is there, but can never be answered. Even if the question was answered, there would still be an endless round of arguments both ways of whether the answer was correct.

Having simply hard-defined boundaries avoids an endless round of appeals etc, about any decision of any sort.
People don't have a problem with minimum age cut-offs.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Mick

No, you are arrogant for suggesting older people are cleverer than younger people.

Where did I say *all* over 70’s have problems?

Another question, why do you post in Blue all the time when everyone else doesn’t?

Last question, which you have conveniently copped out of from answering, does the DVLA have it wrong on the age expiration of driving licenses for people who reach the age of 70?

I'll remind you of what I said, which is NOT that older people are more intelligent.

The broad brush approach is unreasonable [in respect of handles such as Millennials]. As others have said, 70 isn't a natural barrier to competence and intelligence. Wisdom also comes with age for those not as stupid as Biden.

Why are you bothered as to why I post in blue? Are you going to introduce a rule that forbids it? To answer your petty question, I do it because it's distinctive. It doesn't seem to have bothered anybody.

On your last question, it was not a point relevant to the ability of a 70+ person to be intelligent or govern a country. And as I don't dodge answering questions: I've no problem with the 70s DDVLA rules because there are specific age-related eyesight related conditions that make it necessary to mitigate accident risk.




---------- Post added at 22:46 ---------- Previous post was at 22:42 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

If you don't have a clearly defined cut-off, you get the current situation of the question is there, but can never be answered. Even if the question was answered, there would still be an endless round of arguments both ways of whether the answer was correct.

Having simply hard-defined boundaries avoids an endless round of appeals etc, about any decision of any sort.
People don't have a problem with minimum age cut-offs.

The public can decide the cut-off at the polls if they consider it more important than the other pull factors. To constitutionally set a cut-off point, certainly as low as Mick wants it to be, would lead to all sorts of nastiness, like changes to employment law, changes to insurance premiums etc.