My vision is even harsher, and not for the US, but the whole world, look at my hands, as we say. We have an age of retirement, don't we? Right? So: we take this age, subtract the presidential, parliament or whatever timespan, and that's it. that's the last point you can be elected. Period, full stop. For example, if the age of retirement is 65, and the presidential cadence is four years, no-freaking-body can be elected after 61. Dead simple.

@adamvs1 Sorry, but I disagree. Because thus we have some persons that are more equal than others, if you get the reference. I.e., you go on retirement at this age, I go at the same age, my wife goes at the same age, but Trump — no. Why so?

@adamvs1 No, I feel it's democracy. Otherwise, if you can elect a 80-year-old president, than you can hire and cannot fire another 80-year-old specialist, there must be equality. But to be honest, I don't know how it really works in the States, it's like this in Europe where it's basically mandatory to go on retirement if you are in public service.

@menelion @adamvs1 Not to mention that a person who is younger could still serve the needs of senior citizens, but the realistic truth is that a person who is 80 or older is at more risk of death than a person who is younger, they will not live to see what it is there laws that they support would do to the American people, so that by vertue of knowing they will die, they will be able to implement laws that they personally support that can and would cause harm to the American people, because they know that they won't be there to suffer the consequences. This is why I think its important for younger people to take political roles and let older people enjoy there retirement, because a younger person will see the consequences of there actions, good or bad, and will more than likely want to help people that they know will live after them having known what it is to live under there own policies, and so I stand for the limiting of age when it comes to running for any office of government power.