Thread: A Younger president and congress?

There is probably one major reason why we don't have 'younger' people going for a role such as being a president and that is experience. They need to learn the ways of politics, how to handle the pressure, how to deal with the public, make mistakes and learn from them to better themselves as politicians and time to prove to their fellow party members that they can do it. And there is only one real way of doing that and that is time.

I'd like to know that a president/ Prime Minister has had some experience in parliament before being handed the job, plus like to see them in the public eye a bit to get to know them and younger people don't often get that sort of coverage on a national scale.

As for values, I think that's the reason why it's good to change president/Prime Minister every so often. For the last 10 years, Aust had a PM who seemed to be stuck in the past with his thinking (from social to environmental issues) and it seemed that Australia was well behind most other countries in terms of thinking and laws.

But I don't thinks most of the older politicians are stuck in the past though, imo they wouldn't get voted in if they were. They are still at the whim of the public, if the public doesn't believe in the values being presented, they won't vote for them (and I think that's part of the reason, Aust kicked out the former PM).

If it's that's much of an issue - why not vote for the younger generation at a local level? (local mayors, candidates, representatives etc - not sure how the system works in America) and that's a start and how they start getting their experience up for the big job.

thats a good point gwen and its true that
they need the skill and the know how, but almost
anything done today is doine with the thiunking of the
past 40 years or more, if you look around people dont think
like that really i mean untill 9/11 we never really did anything
to change how things were run for security.

and untill that day thing had chnaged alot with in the us
everyone stuck with old style politics it took 9/11 to put
a fire under them and now there doing new things but my
point is if they would have had a younger view or someone
who was younger in some kind of political office things might have
been dfferent becuase todays yotuh knows you cant just trust
anyone and let stay here or there.

if there was a way to give the youth a acutal voice thing would
proably work better washington is fulll of people who should be
in retirment homes but there not because they think they ways
are bettersome of them have closed minds.

anyway though i think things should be changed to where the younger people
are actually heard.

Most of the people who do actually get out and vote (unfortunately) are the older voters. That is why the thought of an actual young president is most likely a dream. People want a president who they feel shares their views. With the largest group of voters being the older voters, that means that their views are the most likely to win out. From their stand point, it is now their time. They had to put up with president's elected by their elders, now they are sticking it to us. When we are the elder group, we will do it to the next young generation.

It doesn't help when even the (sort of) young candidates squawk about someone else's lack of experience. You know there was a time when lack of running a state or country, wasn't a deal breaker. The founding fathers had very little, and in most cases none. They simply did what needed to be done for the betterment of the people (foremost), and the country. They knew how to deligate didn't they. Experience is good, but let's face it their is only one way of getting some experience, and that is being there.

Now don't get me wrong, don't assume I am voting for this person or that one, because of my one point. Heck we all know it was really Hilary running things. My opinion on the candidates we have to choose from... Throw them all out, and give me some real choices.

Before we can have some real choices for candidates (young, or not so), we need MAJOR changes in how elections are run, and financed. All the donations given should be put in a general fund. Each candidate should be given the same amount (not much at that). How many commercials, poster, mailings, radio spots, billboards, etc. do WE really need? Stop the commercials all together. Set times and dates for debates and appearances. Have all the candidates at the same spot at once. Split it over a day or two if need. Have the candidates have their say, and when everyone has, next stop. Once they have been around the country. NO MORE! They have had their say. Enough. Make all the information available to anyone. Have everyone's records & views out their for all to see. Use the money left over in the donations till to help deferrer the cost of the actual elections.

It also does not help that we have positions of great power (Supreme Court), that are for life. Fresh blood will NEVER be a possibility there. Everything should have a set term, and a run limit. Four years at the most (three would be better), and you can only hold office twice. This allows for fresh blood, fresh views, fresh attitudes. Out with the stale and ineffective, in with the fresh meat. Train your hoped for successor ahead of time, endorse them, and then move along.