The problem I have with a max age is if you look at Sanders and Biden, Sanders clearly is not showing any signs of mental fatigue like Biden is doing. I think you have to look at each person individually, because if their mental state isnt what it should be you wont be able to hide it for long in a campaign…Reagan was declining quite rapidly in his second term due to Alzheimer’s and I think if it happened today, you’d have a hard time keeping it under wraps like they did then. The more I see Biden in public the more fragile he seems (the bloody eye did help…does anyone know what caused that?)
The documents that you linked to are from 2008. Do you have any contemporaneous sources that validate his claims? Has Biden provided any?
If he actually had severe asthma as a teenager, that would have been in his medical record when he first went to the draft board and likely sufficient to get him a medical deferment from the start - he would not have needed to get five (5) student deferments first.
Furthermore, his autobiography makes no mention of asthma, but describes him participating in many activities that would not be compatible to someone with asthma that was severe enough to get disqualified from the service.
His avoiding the draft by claiming teenage asthma looks about as suspicious as Trump’s bone spurs.
You’re attempting to flip the burden of proof. You made the claim, so it’s on you to substantiate it.
Surely you have some sort of a source – even if a Russian troll farm or a right-wing attack piece – no?
I don’t think I care to dispute that some people might still be capable of service in later years than others. Personally I’m 52 and I know I’m past my prime.
But … if we have exceptions for a maximum age why don’t we allow exceptional people to serve when they are younger than the minimum age?
(I guess, essentially, I don’t see minimum/maximum as valid at all, or as valid for both – but treating them differently feels outright dumb, to me)
The two age points are not symmetric. Experience accumulates, lessons are learned, wisdom is gained with age (one hopes).
Are you saying everyone who avoided Viet Nam or WWII was hypocritical? That’s a bit uncharitable.
Viet Nam was understood as lost and pointless very early. It was unfair that college students could get deferments (or get into the National Guard), while working-class kids did not; but, everybody was trying to stay out of the army.
The courageous thing was to refuse induction, or move to Canada. The hypocritical thing was to use your college deferment while cheering for more war. In the end, it was the massive demonstrations on college campuses after the Cambodian invasion and Kent State that forced an end to that war.
I get these periodically.
Subconjunctival hemorrhage is when one or more blood spots appear on the white of your eye. The eye’s conjunctiva contains a lot of tiny blood vessels that can break. If they break, blood leaks between the conjunctiva and sclera. This bleeding is the bright red spot that you see on the white of your eye. These blood spots can look scary. But a subconjunctival hemorrhage is usually harmless and often heals on its own.
Usually the only symptom of subconjunctival hemorrhage is a red spot in your eye. In fact, you may not know you have it until you look in the mirror. Occasionally, you may experience a very mild irritation of the eye.
Coughing, sneezing, straining, or other similar actions most commonly cause subconjunctival hemorrhages. This is because they briefly raise blood pressure in your veins. That quick pressure rise can cause capillaries to break.Trauma to the eye can also cause subconjunctival hemorrhage. Even rubbing your eyes too hard might cause capillaries to break.
Less common causes of subconjunctival hemorrhage include:
- high blood pressure
- medicines that can make you bleed easily (such as aspirin or blood thinners like Coumadin)
Rarely, subconjunctival hemorrhage is caused by a blood clotting disorder or other blood problem that affects your whole body.
A subconjunctival hemorrhage should heal on its own without treatment. Depending on how big your spot is, this may take a few days or a few weeks.
If you get subconjunctival hemorrhages often, your ophthalmologist will talk with you about further testing.
Because minimum age is mandated in the Constitution…so its not as simple as passing a law. You’d need a Constitutional Amendment for that. I think that kind of energy is better placed elsewhere.
I’m not charitable. Have you mistaken me for a good person?
I dropped out of college in 1970 (I was lacking in the wisdom department) and faced the draft. I pulled a 1-Y after my physical, which I had worked to achieve, mainly by losing weight. The crew at Ft. Holabird was apparently eager to find reasons to reject folks. On my bus from the Selective Service office we had something like 25 rejects for 5 accepted.
I am not so troubled about Biden avoiding the draft as I am his avoiding the draft and later supporting a war resolution with the flimsiest of reasoning for doing so (when everyone knew or should have known what it was about: Bush/Cheney oil interests, Republicans capitalizing on the 911 political winds, and Democrats caving to the 911 political winds). My favorite politicians don’t start wars to shore up their political future.
I agree experience accumulates, but I don’t think that’s always a good idea. Most new science has been roundly doubted at by scientists on the basis of their accumulated experience right up until they admit the evidence for some new theory is actually compelling. Experience can be good, but I don’t view it as an un-alloyed good.
@scottnatlanta , yeah I can’t argue for the practicality of such a limit. Clearly it would require something that won’t get passed – an Amendment. I just don’t understand why we think the two aren’t related. I guess I just don’t think wisdom and experience are the most important part of what is needed. I’ve got plenty of evidence in my own body and mind that age can be very problematic – I’m a lot more close-minded than I used to be, and I wrestle a lot more with anger issues than I did even when I was in the service.
On its face it was a legitimate request for authorization, and the vote was hardly a close one. Biden has previously said his approach to working in the Senate is to take people at their word, no other choice being workable (for him).
A strained example, as those new things always extend, rather than upend, science. It’s a common misconception that Newton was replaced by Einstein. Newton is what NASA uses to send a probe to Mars, although for best position information we need Special Relativity to compensate for different clock rates between ground and orbit to get the most out of GPS.
Experience is usually all we have regarding the likely actions of others.
Mass homeothermy as a theory for dinosaurian biology was replaced, not extended. Your point about Newton is completely valid, I just don’t see it as completely representative of all science.
I’ll agree experience is required in learning to judge people. It’s a skill I’ve never been good at, like recognizing sarcasm. But I don’t think the Presidency requires merely judging people correctly, I think it requires a lot more than that. I think Biden’s past it, and I think Trump is as well, and I’ll admit that even when I served Reagan he was clearly past it. To my mind that ratio, two bad and four good (and younger) presidents seems damning to me.
May I bet you’d agree that a US that hadn’t allowed Reagan or Trump into office would be a better US? Because an upper age limit of 70 would have let Clinton, HW, Bush, and Obama serve while excluding those two. (I’m pretty sure HW was in his '60s at the time he served, if I’m wrong please correct me)
Remember that if you ever have to have a doctor operate on you
I think it’s a fair point that Newton vs Einstein is the classic old vs new, to most people. And Newtonian mechanics is used for all, repeat, all engineering, except for solid-state electronics. Bridges are built, airplanes fly on Newton’s equations. Radio and radar depend on Maxwell’s equations on electromagnetism, from about 150 years ago. (I’ve read a lot of science, dad was one, and I had not heard of mass homeothermy by that name.)
My open heart surgery was done by the head of the department at Beth Israel Deaconess. Dr. Khabbaz has 30 years of experience as a doctor, and is literally one of the tops in his field – he teaches at Harvard.
He has plenty of experience, and wisdom, and is not even close to 70. (and, damn no I don’t want some 70 year old poking around my defective heart valve, I’ll trust one to teach, but FUCK NO he is not welcome in my chest)
It was a statement more about experience that a particular age, but your answer is yes, you would want someone with experience to operate on you.
That sir, is my point. You are extending a perfectly valid point about physics extending what we know to all science, and it isn’t valid to do so in all fields. (I still totally agree w. you about Newton and physics, but even within physics … well … we didn’t extend “etheric influences” in any way shape or form, they were simply proven wrong)