[mortify]

The same reason we don't have a race or sex limit on the Presidency. We should only have competency limits regardless of any other factors. My grandfather died at 101. He was extremely sharp until he was 98 and on no medication. I'd vote for that 95 year-old over either of our current choices without hesitation.

[everforward]

“Competency” is hard to evaluate, especially objectively, and that raises a whole host of other issues because it can’t be resolved expediently. Who raises a competency question? Who decides on it? When can the question be raised? What happens if we don’t have an answer by the time of the election, because it’s tied up in appeals?

Objective qualifications are much simpler. We could argue for months about whether a president is competent, but it takes like 7 seconds to decide whether they’re older than some arbitrary bar.

[newzisforsukas]

And at 98 did your Grandfather lead a country? How about a company? Manage a store? A team of employees?

All these anecdotal superhuman tales fail the smell test.

There is this hyped longitudinal study, but it doesn't say what roles these "superagers" were in, only that they had slightly better cognitive outcomes than their peers.

No one has cognitive capacity or neuronal volume of a 35 year old at 65, not to speak of 95.

It is delusional to think anyone can escape the effects of aging at this point in time.

https://www.jneurosci.org/content/44/25/e2059232024