• Mio@feddit.nu
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    I would like to see more requirements:

    1. Upper age restriction
    2. Does not lie about well known facts from scientist, like Covid-19.
    • UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 months ago

      Upper age restriction

      And what happens when medical science increases life expectancy? U would have to amend the constitution to pass this. Think of how nightmarish it is to do this. Now think of amending this AGAIN when life expectancy increases every year.

      Does not lie about well known facts from scientist, like Covid-19.

      Who decides what “well known facts” are? A particular non-political committee? The supreme court was supposed to be this committee. It clearly became political quickly…

      • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        6 months ago

        And what happens when medical science increases life expectancy?

        Make the upper age limit be average life expectancy minus X years. This has the added bonus of motivating politicians to actually try to increase average life expectancy.

        Who decides what “well known facts” are?

        The scientific community, and certainly not the Supreme Court. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

        • Wiz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          The scientific community, and certainly not the Supreme Court.

          Because there are different “scientific communities” - some of them rogue and stupid. I’m not the poster you were responding to, but I would assume that the arbiter of your hypothetical of which scientific communities would be valid would go to the Supreme Court.

          • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            No. The scientific community polices* itself with peer review. The rogue and stupid communities are peer reviewed out of existence. You can submit all the falsified “research” you want, but if your published results can’t be replicated, you will be labeled a quack and your “findings” will go ignored by the rest of the scientific community.

            No government-affiliated judicial body is involved in verifying science, because judges are experts in law, not science.

            • Wiz@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Do you know how long it takes to replicate another’s studies? Sometimes that never happens.

              • zalgotext@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                Are you suggesting that the United States Supreme Court weighs in on scientific studies that haven’t been replicated yet?

                • Wiz@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  No, I’m still commenting about Mio’s suggestion upthread, that “not lying about science” is a terrible #5 criterion for president.

    • acosmichippo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Upper age restriction

      instead of this I would like to see independent physical and mental acuity tests performed and released publicly. no need to bring age into it if they are fit. and if they aren’t fit they shouldn’t be able to run even if they’re young.

      • Mio@feddit.nu
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Sure but I also want that the person to be able to last the whole 4 years period without running into any of those health issues with time. Might be hard to get the health measurements right and get people to accept it. Easier for people to just understand the person did not meet the age criteria.