HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Let's Address the Ageism ...

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:00 PM

 

Let's Address the Ageism Elephant in the Room!

Ageism is written right into the Constitution, where it defines the minimum age to be POTUS—35. Why should there not be a maximum age? We’ve now had two presidents first inaugurated at age 70 (Reagan was 69 years and 348 days—close enough!) and The Orange Buffoon at 71.6. Reagan by the end had to have his wife whisper answers in his ear, and confused movies with real life. Trump already can’t pronounce ‘anonymous’ or ‘origins,’ and he confuses the Sicario movies with real life Mexico. Look, I like ALL our candidates, personally--Joe Biden is even my birth-mate. But the three B’s, as I call them, Biden, Bernie, and Bloomberg, are all 77 right now, with nearly two years to go to inauguration! Now add in two terms and we are talking about them needing drool catchers! How many organizations have mandatory retirement ages? The five Democratic Presidents in our lifetimes were first inaugurated at 43, 46, 47, 51, and 52, with Carter the oldest. I didn’t include Johnson (55) and Truman (60) because they first ascended to the presidency via death, but still, they were WAY under the three B’s! In this case Ageism isn’t discrimination; it is salvation, because we are talking about the POTUS!

60 replies, 4701 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 60 replies Author Time Post
Reply Let's Address the Ageism Elephant in the Room! (Original post)
DoctorJoJo Apr 2019 OP
delisen Apr 2019 #1
genxlib Apr 2019 #3
delisen Apr 2019 #59
allgood33 Apr 2019 #6
Karadeniz Apr 2019 #30
genxlib Apr 2019 #2
DoctorJoJo Apr 2019 #7
Merlot Apr 2019 #55
hlthe2b Apr 2019 #4
DoctorJoJo Apr 2019 #14
hlthe2b Apr 2019 #17
Blue_true Apr 2019 #47
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #5
hughee99 Apr 2019 #13
DoctorJoJo Apr 2019 #45
Demit Apr 2019 #8
DoctorJoJo Apr 2019 #11
Paladin Apr 2019 #9
Act_of_Reparation Apr 2019 #36
LanternWaste Apr 2019 #10
DoctorJoJo Apr 2019 #12
patricia92243 Apr 2019 #16
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #24
patricia92243 Apr 2019 #31
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #33
DoctorJoJo Apr 2019 #42
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #48
Tipperary Apr 2019 #23
loyalsister Apr 2019 #15
Takket Apr 2019 #18
DoctorJoJo Apr 2019 #38
Tipperary Apr 2019 #19
DoctorJoJo Apr 2019 #39
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #20
Tipperary Apr 2019 #21
lillypaddle Apr 2019 #25
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #27
lillypaddle Apr 2019 #49
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #50
lillypaddle Apr 2019 #22
DoctorJoJo Apr 2019 #43
nolabear Apr 2019 #26
DoctorJoJo Apr 2019 #40
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #51
DoctorJoJo Apr 2019 #60
wasupaloopa Apr 2019 #28
DoctorJoJo Apr 2019 #44
Haggis for Breakfast Apr 2019 #52
treestar Apr 2019 #58
DavidDvorkin Apr 2019 #29
Deb Apr 2019 #32
lunatica Apr 2019 #34
Tipperary Apr 2019 #37
customerserviceguy Apr 2019 #53
Hortensis Apr 2019 #35
DoctorJoJo Apr 2019 #41
Hortensis Apr 2019 #46
The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #57
VOX Apr 2019 #54
Joe941 Apr 2019 #56

Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:04 PM

1. I am will to stick with the original minimum with no maximum

nd I think a one term presidency is just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:08 PM

3. An incumbent running for re-election is an incredible advantage

Giving up that potential advantage is a real risk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to genxlib (Reply #3)

Fri Apr 5, 2019, 12:07 AM

59. We have may great candidates clamoring to take charge.

If demands of the office are so great it may be better to let 4 years be the norm, have an active vp who will make a great candidate in 4 ears.

We don't need to amend the constitution to give voters less choice by setting arbitrary maximum age limits



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:11 PM

6. I agree.

 

That is why selection of a great VP candidate is crucial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #1)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 02:28 PM

30. Presidential campaigns clog up air space for so long and cost so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:07 PM

2. I'm with you

This has been my mantra for months. I will support who ever gets put forward but I do think this should be a consideration.

On the other hand, Mayor Pete might be a little too young. He is extraordinarily impressive but I would prefer to see him season a little longer. Would love to see him in a role that would grant him that opportunity. Cabinet level probably but I wouldn't be upset about VP.

That still leave a solid bunch of candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to genxlib (Reply #2)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:13 PM

7. I've Been Pushing a Harris/Buttigeig Ticket

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Reply #7)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 07:10 PM

55. That's the ticket I want as well!

And speaking of VP's, I feel like Biden was using that meeting with Stacy Abrams as a bait and switch. A little birdee told me that Biden has his eye on a certain white, male governor as his VP favorite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:08 PM

4. I had high school classmates (twins) who died of childhood leukemia at 16; Carter, who you mention

is sharp as a tack at 94. As anyone at the Carter Center or Habitat for Humanity.

On the other hand, as many as 5% of the population will develop EARLY onset dementia (as early as 35) and that may be on the rise.

Age and its effects are a continuum. People can die at any age. Someone in their 70s now would have already been dead-- statistically-- had they lived decades ago. There is no perfect predictive model and certainly, not one based on age alone to predict how well one's mental faculties will be sustained (if one ever had the intellect to begin with); nor can a crystal ball predict when someone will die sans an established fatal condition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:37 PM

14. Carter IS amazing, but we are talking well past the three-sigma scale here!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Reply #14)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:40 PM

17. Outliers occur in every age group and category. Thus the idiocy of age descrimination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #4)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 05:31 PM

47. WHO do you think you are? Interfering with a rant about why anyone over 68 should kill themselves.



Just in case that was not obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:09 PM

5. Age should not be automatically disqualifying.

They didn't put an age cap in the Constitution (and don't tell me people didn't live so long in those days; John Adams lived to be 90, was president in his 60s and continued to write right up until his death. The average lifespan was low because of high infant mortality but if you made it through childhood you had a good chance to live as long as people do now). We are, of course, entitled to consider a candidate's age, and the probability that they will not serve two terms, in deciding whether to vote for him/her. But to automatically disqualify anyone older than a certain age is, indeed, ageist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #5)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:32 PM

13. Clinton is only a year younger than the Cheetoh, and I don't recall

Anyone having an issue with it in 2016. Yes, age should be considered but, as you said, it shouldn’t be an automatic disqualified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #13)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 04:24 PM

45. I Had An Issue In The Primary, But I'd Pick a Yellow Dog Over CheetoMussolini!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:13 PM

8. Kennedy, Carter, Clinton, Obama makes four. You took out LBJ. Who's the fifth?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demit (Reply #8)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:28 PM

11. Age 51 was FDR and I DID mention both LBJ and Truman as ascending by death.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:21 PM

9. You best not try to sell ageism to me.

I got a bellyful of it here at DU during the last campaign, from arrogant young Bernie supporters (yeah, I appreciated the irony). They gave me a world of shit for being old enough to (gasp!) remember details of the 1972 McGovern campaign. It's been a sore subject with me, ever since. I suspect others feel the same way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #9)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 03:18 PM

36. To the privileged...

...equality seems like oppression.

Pay off my student loans and then maybe we'll talk about the mean youngsters hurting your fee fees.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:27 PM

10. Lacking objective evidence to support your premise, it's nothing but ageism.

What then is the specific cut off age, and on what objective measure is that based on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #10)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:30 PM

12. I'm thinking 65 would be a decent goal.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:39 PM

16. Yes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patricia92243 (Reply #16)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:57 PM

24. No!

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 86. Should she be put out to pasture?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #24)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 02:46 PM

31. I thought we were talking Presidents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patricia92243 (Reply #31)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 03:07 PM

33. The presidency is an office job.

While I'm sure it can be psychologically stressful at times, so are many other office jobs. Being the CEO of Boeing, for example, is probably very stressful right now. Being on the Supreme Court, fo example, or in any court, isn't a walk in the park and judges often work long hours. Presidents do travel a lot, but they aren't sitting in a middle seat in coach; they're traveling in a flying hotel with all the amenities. They do a lot of meeting and greeting but so does the Queen of England, who is 92. They don't have to do any actual work outside the office since all their household chores are handled by others. If they don't want to or can't walk a few blocks to see the sights they can demand a golf cart. If they don't want to visit a soldiers' graveyard in the rain they can't be forced to do it. They aren't asked to chop wood or lay railroad track. They sit at a desk most of the time, at least those who aren't watching TV in bed with a tub of KFC, or waddling around a golf course.

Winston Churchill was in his 70s during WWII when he was the PM of England, and King Haakon VII, at age 70, was a hero of the Norwegian resistance. Benjamin Franklin was in his 70s during the Revolution. Nelson Mandela was elected President of South Africa at 75. Konrad Adenauer became the first chancellor of West Germany at 73 and served until he was 87 - just to name a few people over 65 who served ably in government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to patricia92243 (Reply #31)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 04:07 PM

42. I thought We Were, Too!!

 

There is no more pressure on earth than POTUS, unless you don't give a shit like Trump!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Reply #42)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 05:44 PM

48. How about being the Prime Minister of Britain during WWII?

Churchill was in his 70s. How about being Chancellor of West Germany from immediately after the war and through most of the Cold War? Adenauer was in his 70s and into his 80s. That's as much pressure as any president is likely to experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Reply #12)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:56 PM

23. Maybe do some research on Winston Churchill.

 

Your ageism is sad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:38 PM

15. It's a practical consideration

Woodrow Wilson spent much of his presidency convalescing after a stroke.
Failing minds and bodies are natural and foreseeable in all of our futures, with symptoms and risks increasing with age.
It is reasonable to factor that potential in choosing someone for a job of great consequence.
In MO at least some of our judges are required to retire when they hit 70. It's sensible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:42 PM

18. Drumpf was still a scumbag when he was 35

The problem isn’t the age of these racist idiots, it is the racist idiots voting for them ruining everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Takket (Reply #18)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 04:00 PM

38. Yes He Was--and an Asshole, Too But ..

 

... watch some interviews with him 20 years ago compared with the doddering Dotard he is today! Look--I come to this with a lot of unmatched personal experience: I have as much education as anyone, and I could still solve a differential equation, but I can't tell you how many times I can see a face in my mind but can't put a name to it! I'm guessing Jimmy Carter would tell you the same. It just IS a factor!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:42 PM

19. I know several women in their 90s. None of them need "drool catchers" (gross by the way)

 

Bet they could walk miles around you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tipperary (Reply #19)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 04:01 PM

39. Well, Again I speak From Experience. I'm a Gum Chewer, and I've Drooled a Bit Lately!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:52 PM

20. Three words: Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #20)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:53 PM

21. Thank you.

 

Jimmy Carter is still rolling along too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #20)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:57 PM

25. Love me some RBG!

Can she get on a plane, fly around the world, land and attend gala celebrations and meetings long into the night, and then up at 6:00 am for more of the same? I don't think so. Good god, that's nothing against her. Age happens to everyone and it's foolish to believe it doesn't make a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lillypaddle (Reply #25)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 02:00 PM

27. I think she could, considering what she's done and what she's been through.

She has missed oral arguments only once in her entire career, even though she's had several bouts with cancer and recently had part of a lung removed. Being a Supreme Court justice isn't a walk in the park; it's actually a lot of work. And you don't have to work hard as president; just look at Trump, who spends most of his time either watching TV or golfing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #27)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 06:00 PM

49. Well, we aren't looking for someone

who "works as hard" as trump, now are we?

Being President is PHYSICALLY grueling from what I can tell. RBG is amazing, and yes, she works hard. But it's not being President of the USA and leader of the free world. If you can't see that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lillypaddle (Reply #49)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 06:07 PM

50. I guess so, along with Winston Churchill, Konrad Adenauer,

Nelson Mandela, King Haakon VII and Queen Elizabeth II, who despite their advanced ages were/are capable heads of state during times of great crisis for their countries. I guess Americans just can't handle that kind of pressure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:54 PM

22. Agree 100%

I'm 71 btw ... and everyone ages a bit differently, but those you mentioned are too damn old, period. I don't care what anyone says, being president is grueling work (except for trump), and there is no way 77 year olds have the stamina and energy that someone even 10 years younger has.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lillypaddle (Reply #22)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 04:10 PM

43. Thank You! Been There, Experienced That!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 01:57 PM

26. Do we extend this to Congress and governors as well?

After all, they make decisions that affect our lives every day. Nancy’s out, McCain would’ve been gone, Bernie would be out...

How about the President simply have to undergo an actual physical evaluation that includes neurological and other age related stressors to ensure they’re fit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #26)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 04:03 PM

40. Well, If You've Watched A few of the Doddering Repuke Senators, I'm Saying Yes!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Reply #40)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 06:25 PM

51. How about the Dems? We have Nancy Pelosi (79) and Maxine Waters (80),

who are two of the very best representatives in Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #51)

Sat Apr 6, 2019, 04:04 PM

60. The House Only Has a Two-Year Commitment, So Much More Leeway than Six or Eight!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 02:16 PM

28. All people do not age alike. Because you can site two

 

people who had problems does not mean we all have problems,

I am 72 and went back to work as an accountant.

Nobody has to whisper in my ear nor am I as simple minded as trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wasupaloopa (Reply #28)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 04:13 PM

44. Well, At 72 I Say Wait Another Five Years and Then Readdress the Issue

 

When I was a teen, I could spout the height/weight/college of every player in the NFL. Long story short, not today!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wasupaloopa (Reply #28)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 06:29 PM

52. Extending your argument, then

we should have NO age minimum, because "All people do not age alike."

There are people who graduate from colleges (like Harvard or MIT) at 14. Have a PhD (or two) by the time they're 21.

So the issue here really isn't one of age. It's one of qualifications.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wasupaloopa (Reply #28)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 09:24 PM

58. Exactly

Different people are different. Cutting off things for any age is just wrong. There are people over the cutoff who can do whatever it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 02:17 PM

29. No maximum, no minimum

Individuals differ too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 02:57 PM

32. A perfect example of why federal age discrimination in hiring laws are necessary

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 03:10 PM

34. This is a creepy OP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #34)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 03:27 PM

37. It sure is.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #34)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 06:47 PM

53. Yep

I find it that way, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 03:10 PM

35. Because it would be dreadfully wrong, a betrayal of the

humanist principles our nation was founded on. And remember, we're the party of liberalism. You know, the ones who believe to our cores in equality of all men and that every man is entitled to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

We should be thanking the Medical Revolution that we now have so many great, vigorous people of a broad range of ages. As your data indicate, in Jefferson's day the older generations were either dead or too medically fragile to undertake the journeys and other physical challenges involved in national service.

There's not nearly enough appreciation for this great blessing we are the first generations to have, that so many more people in their 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and even 90s now have the greatly expanded freedom good health gives to continue with work they find rewarding and/or needed, paid or unpaid. It's a magnificent gift our less-fortunate ancestors never imagined for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #35)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 04:05 PM

41. And There Are Geniuses at 34 That Are Currently Precluded!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Reply #41)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 05:21 PM

46. LOL, but precious precious few of them

and genius has no linkage to good character, competence, or solid, stable personality and ability. Geniuses without the rest should stick to writing papers better people can evaluate. Maturity and experience, however, give contemporaries capable of evaluating honestly and thoughtfully an idea into all of them. That includes whether they honorably handle the temptations of a potentially highly corrupting environment.

With Trump in the White House, I really do not understand this current mania among some to elect people who can only be evaluated by their sales pitches.

Trump should be a profound lesson in the dangers of electing people who are not what their supporters thought they were. And it’s always wise to seek the opinions of people who know them rather than just relying on the pictures they draw of themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Reply #41)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 08:30 PM

57. Only until they turn 35. Excluding people over 65, or some other older age

excludes them forever. Your 34-year-old genius can wait another year, and presumably will still be a genius, or an even smarter, more experienced one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 06:51 PM

54. You're addressing ageism by practicing it. Might as well exclude women, POC & LGBT folks, too.

Because there are plenty of right-wing nutcases who would argue that women, POC and/or LGBT folks are a “risk,” “unfit,” etc., based on racism, sexism, and homophobia— all of it morally wrong and unhealthy for democracy.

There are 35-year-olds who can’t be trusted to walk across the street, and 75-year-olds who can outthink, out-strategize, and run circles around people 30-40 years younger.

Yes, overall health is always a factor for ANY age. But a healthy 70-year-old today likely has another 25+ years left in the tank. (Unless Republicans destroy healthcare, Medicare and Social Security altogether.)

Want insurance? Make sure the VP candidate is someone who will be worthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DoctorJoJo (Original post)

Wed Apr 3, 2019, 07:14 PM

56. It is on a case by case basis.

 

And this group of seasoned citizens are in good shape. They should not be disqualified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread