Comments on: An Argument for requiring candidates to be at least 25

By: californiaguy

californiaguy — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 17:18:13 +0000

Age has nothing to do with being a political sleazy hack.

By: tony Irvington

tony Irvington — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 22:06:30 +0000

18 is old enough. 25??

How about asking what age is TOO OLD?

Say 75? Possibly 80? Nahhhh. 72 Tops.

That’s that.

Now catch your breath. I am not suggesting they be put out to pasture or relegated to a daily routine of court t.v. Not at all. There are plenty of other things that “active” senior can do for his or her city and/or it’s goverment.

I’m not suggesting that Octogenarians can’t think sharp,
just that they’re generally less eager to sink their teeth into things as say …… a 22 year old.

By: Billy Bob

Billy Bob — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 04:06:48 +0000

Oh James, you’ve got my vote. That is exactly the kind of apathy I look for in a leader.
You are a great example for you peers. That “I don’t give a $#@!” attitude is refreshing.
If you get elected I can’t wait to see you at meetings texting and playing games on your phone.
If you were in Fremont, I bet you would still beat Fazlur by 250 votes.

By: FL

FL — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 06:24:51 +0000

Me too, I think any candidates for public office should be 21.

By: Ishan Shah

Ishan Shah — Sat, 02 Oct 2010 02:07:23 +0000

I politely and respectfully disagree.