Ron Paul Announces He's Running (Is it his time?) - Page 4

Are you saying I don't have a valid concern?

I'm saying you don't. Is Paul not going to live 4 years?

How does one determine what is "reasonable" per you?

John McCain during the campaign could still refer people to his MOTHER to ask about his age and health. Ron Paul has clearly lived a pretty healthy life. I'd bet his body fat percentage, even at 75 is well below the average for these forums filled with mostly much younger men.

They used to bring up the age issue with Bob Dole back in 1996 and even HE is still alive.

To validate your point and at least confirm it as reasonable, could you bring up a major candidate for whom the age issue has been brought up in the last 20 years who has you know, even DIED yet. I'm not even saying died in office, just you know, DIED period.

Also it was mentioned that you had to be 37 to run for president but that should also be considered in the context of the life expectancy of the time. In 1787 life expectancy was barely 35-40 years. If you didn't get yourself killed in a war, kicked by a horse or hit with a germ we knew nothing about defending against then you managed to probably make it a good long time but most obviously didn't do that.

Is he going to either die or go senile by the time he hits 82? There's an extremely strong possibility of that happening for anyone that age.

I don't see any signs of it now. I wouldn't say such a possibility is "extremely strong." There are people that die or go senile at 49. Understand, I don't think he'll win. But claiming he's not qualified because he's 78 is pretty weak. It's McCain argument all over again. McCain showed no signs of losing mental capacity or being physically unfit for the job, yet those ads kept on running.

Let's go back to Reagan ... it's been widely speculated that he was probably feeling the effects of Alzheimer's before he left office. It may not have affected his performance yet ... but... we'll never know.
Having taken two grandparents through the joys of Alzheimer's, I can say that hindsight shows the effects were there long before WE actually noticed it.

I'm certainly not saying that this WILL happen to RP (I've also known many people who retained full mental faculties well into their 90's,) but it is certainly a valid concern that voters will (and should) CONSIDER. We are talking POTUS here, not CEO of some replaceable corporation.

I'm sorry to hear about what happened to your grandparents KOSH.

It can be a valid concern with anybody though. Early onset Alzheimer's which is 10% of the cases happens in the 50's. Should anyone over 50 be disqualified from the presidency?

Plenty of life threatening conditions for example heart attacks, various cancers, etc. all have their curves for occuring ramp up dramatically starting at 50, especially the mid 50's. Does that disqualify anyone over that age?

It's sort of strange that Democrats keep bringing up the issue of health when so many of the presidents they would consider to be great were trainwrecks of health. FDR for obvious reason and Kennedy was alleged to have had all sorts of back issues and various meds associated with them.

The office of president is about a person, their ideas for the country and a plan to carry out those ideas. If the president were to die in office due to age, assasination, accident or whatever then the next in line and the party leaders will hopefully carry that platform forward.

The debate in many ways isn't appropriate since no one really absolutely knows their due date with regard to death. The whole thing in many ways stinks of eugenics.

One last note with regard to Alzheimer's, while nothing is completely conclusive yet, there is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that a busy brain, much like busy body is less likely to have something go wrong. I'll gladly admit as a 40 year old, that I have friends who haven't listened to new music since hair bands went out of style and refuse to text on a cell phone. I have other friends who in no form or fashion address their health. You've got to keep your brain active and they folks going for major office, no matter the party, often are active folks.

In today's world, 78 is not that old. People routinely live until 90, 95 or even 100. It's not a factor unless we see signs of problems as he's running. It's not like the guy is 90 years old, or even 85 right now. That would be different.

As for Reagan, that's all speculation and hearsay. The official story from the family is that he may have started getting a bit forgetful in the very last few months of office, but that they didn't consider his disease to have manifested itself until 1992 through 1994 (when he wrote his "goodbye" letter to the people).

Who said age was the only factor? I certainly didn't.

Let me clarify a little:

Age (or race, or general health, or religion) should not be used to prevent a person from RUNNING for any office. Yes, that would be discrimination.

All of those factors can certainly be considered though, when an INDIVIDUAL decides who they'll VOTE for ... that would NOT be discrimination, merely a factor in how they vote. The DNC, RNC or any other party, as a private entity, can use whatever means they wish to use to choose their candidate as well... if you don't like how they choose their candidate, then by all means, voice your opinion at the polls and caucuses and even op-ed pieces.

Indubitably KoSH.

Thanks. I'll get it. Have you read it?

I haven't read that one. I read "The Revolution: A Manifesto" by Ron Paul and I've read several of his articles and commentaries on The Fed.

Did statements like this reflect some other concern?

OMFG are you actually implying that we don't already discriminate with regard to religion in presidential elections? Would a Muslim who is 'right for the job' EVER be electable? How about (Gid forbid!) an atheist!!!?

Just so I'm clear about the position of the resident liberals...

It is okay to discriminate.

In other words it is perfectly fine to vote for or against someone one whatever basis you wish.

Is this right?

[MJ response mode]Nope.[/MJ response mode]

So...are there some permissible basis for people's votes? What are these how should they be monitored and enforced?

People's voting intentions can never be monitored nor enforced, and we must never try. However, in advertising and electioneering, discrimination based on protected class status is already illegal.

I know that. I'm not asking what's illegal. That's a dodge. I'm asking what your opinion is.

Yes but would you want one of them running the country?


So at 85 he won't even have enough for 2 terms!

Once you get to be around 75 to 80 every day is a gift. The average age of death in men in the U.S. is 78 so you see how dicey this is.

http://www.suite101.com/content/aver...gevity-a275686

Yes...God forbid we have anyone with vast life experience and the wisdom that comes with it running the country. Better to have the young, handsome, looks-good-with-his-shirt-off, gives-a-good-speech-with-a-telprompter buffoon.

But can he find where he put his shoes? As I age I have nothing but the greatest respect for someone of years. However I also realize that as you age you aren't as quick or as resilient. I really don't want anyone past the age of 60 running the country. Have you seen how even a young man ages in that job? Growing old is wonderful on the one hand. You're still here and have a wealth of knowledge to share. On the other demanding circumstances ( that require different ways of thinking ) are better met by someone who is a bit younger. Growing old is full of distractions due to the failure of your body. We need someone young and vibrant ( who'd be open to new ideas ) in there. I'm 58 now so I know what I'm talking about. As an older coworker who's retiring at the end of the month said to me last week : " Growing old isn't for wimps ".

Good God! Are you going to break out the jokes about Jews being tight with money now?



So we have jimmac's discriminatory threshold. It's 60. Tell me now. Should an employer be allowed to discriminate in a similar manner? Should an employer be allowed to say I really don't want anyone past the age of 60 running X?

Let's face it this job is a lot more demanding than flipping burgers! It's one of the toughest jobs out there. It's specialized. That's why there's already a lower age requirement.

Odd comparisons between trying to run the world and flipping hamburgers aside...Should an employer be allowed to discriminate in a similar manner? Should an employer be allowed to say I really don't want anyone past the age of 60 running X?

What I just wrote above makes hash out of this statement. But as there's already a lower age requirement I should think you would be aware of the special nature of this job.

Lower age requirement? What the hell are you talking about?

Hey! You're the one who wants to put this in a comparison with jobs in general!

Well it's a job. No matter how you put. It is a job of one kind or another. You're the one making the odd comparison of the presidency to flipping hamburgers. But I ask again: Should an employer be allowed to discriminate in a similar manner? Should an employer be allowed to say I really don't want anyone past the age of 60 running X?

Sigh! You have to be 35 to be president.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_candidacy


You didn't know this?

What a surprise!

That's a minimum age requirement genius.