Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Can it be 30 years from now yet? I'm tired of the entire batch of government officials we have. Baby Boomers had their time, and did a pretty terrible job during it.

Both "sides" of the US government are crap. There's no balanced level headed people anymore. It's either nut job conservative or insane to the point of being offended at calling people "people" because that puts a label on them that they did not choose for themselves liberals.

Heaven forbid the executive branch be run by someone who didn't come from those 2 brands if psychotic, because then we might get somewhere.

Who would you like to see run for office? We gotta pick somebody. The age requirement is 35, that's pretty young.

I'm surprised Paul Ryan isn't giving it a go for the GOP nomination.

 jasper76 wrote:
Who would you like to see run for office? We gotta pick somebody. The age requirement is 35, that's pretty young.

I'm surprised Paul Ryan isn't giving it a go for the GOP nomination.

My problem isn't with the minimum, but rather the maximum for all government jobs. 50 years served? Suffice it to say at that point you are well beyond your prime and out of touch with what the country needs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Conyers

25 is the min age for congress, 35 for president. Perhaps 65 or the closest election BEFORE that age is met would be a good starting point for mandatory retirement from office. I'm honestly tired of the country being run by people who won't be around 20 more years to see the consequences of their actions.

If our military has age limits, so should the people who command them. 10 U.S. Code § 1253: Mandatory retirement age for general and flag officers is age 64. Officers in O9 and O10 positions may have retirement deferred until age 66 by the SECDEF or until age 68 by the President.

Ideally I'd say a president between 45-55 would be ideal. Even with presidential deferred retirement, Hillary Clinton would be ousted in 2 years from any military position. If the government has determined that 68 is the maximum age allowed to be making such decisions, I'm inclined to say that's as old as anyone in charge of them should be as well.

If I recall, Supreme Court Justice is the only life long position in government and even then I feel that at the very least regular mental and physical well being checkups should be mandatory.

If his presidency would be anything like "Weekend at Bernies" I would totally vote for him!

His running platform is probably, "Hey no matter what I'm better than Satan (Hillary)"

 stanman wrote:
His running platform is probably, "Hey no matter what I'm better than Satan (Hillary)"

Sadly the last 4 elections were roughly the same thing.

On the one hand this will drag income equality in to the national debate, and get Clinton to actually address those issues. But on the other hand, no matter what Clinton had to say on the campaign trail won’t affect what she does when she’s actually in office. If she actually does anything about the issue, it would be because she actually wanted to, not because of any statements she was manoeuvred in to during the primaries.

But it will mean the issue is raised and discussed, and hopefully something meaningful will come of that. And Sanders is a pretty interesting guy and sometimes pretty damn hilarious, so if nothing else the democrat primaries will be a lot more interesting than they might have otherwise been.

 stanman wrote:
His running platform is probably, "Hey no matter what I'm better than Satan (Hillary)"

I haven't supported republicans for, well, ever, but I still think this is a reasonable platform.

You have 3 posts to give me a compelling reason to keep this open when the uk folk have kept their political discussion to 1 thread. Go

Well, uh, American politics are by nature designed to be so utterly divisive and polarizing toward the red team vs the blue team (which are basically the same team) that an independent trying to get involved who is actually not a total piece of gak is more newsworthy than probably any other thread on the matter?

I mean, by all means, close threads, but close those other threads. We all know about Hillary and Jeb. No one wants them, but they'll somehow be our options. Let this grow and blossom until the bitter end.

(quick, someone else do better)

Bow bowww, strike 1

There really isn't a reason, especially since it will just be sound bites and random swipes back and forth with little to no consequence condisering that the first of many months of voting won't even happen until 2016.

I concur there is no functional reason. There are going to be at least 6 or 7 more people who join the GOP race, along with another 3 or 4 Democrats plus the usual clowns who pretend to run so they can fleece the rubes.

So yeah, might as well lock into the pre-existing political thread.

Common sense? In the OT? Better lock this before it spreads...and because there is a perfectly good other thread