Age limit for political positions- Split from: An observation on gun control

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Is this somehow unusual?

Incumbent? No.

Eighty year old incumbent as per context for this thread? First time ever.

Until Biden, Reagan was the oldest President ever when he left office. Trump will be older than that before the election in November and Biden was already older than that on day one of the present term.

 

[swansont]

56 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Incumbent? No.

Eighty year old incumbent as per context for this thread? First time ever.

But you cast this in terms of “democratic process” and “checks and balances” and it seems to me that this is the expected process. 

AFAICT every time there was a serious primary challenge to an incumbent, the incumbent lost. How much of that was due to the poor performance of the candidate and how much due to the challenge causing a divide or doing other damage is something one has to assess.

But given that both candidates are old, this should be a non-issue for choosing on that particular metric. Biden has a great record to run on, so there’s no reason to expect a serious primary challenge, and it’s not like there’s someone waiting in the wings that could beat TFG. So any objection along these lines would seem to be moot.

As far as the age discrimination question is concerned, I’m not a fan.

[iNow]

If Biden were 20 years younger, he’d win by like 20+ points. He’s been a good President during hard times with a solid team. 

The age attack just doesn’t work for me given our candidate set since Biden had only just turned 3 when Trump was born. Biden’s old, but Trump is old and crazy and a dangerous asshole. 

[StringJunky]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

If Biden were 20 years younger, he’d win by like 20+ points. He’s been a good President during hard times with a solid team. 

The age attack just doesn’t work for me given our candidate set since Biden had only just turned 3 when Trump was born. Biden’s old, but Trump is old and crazy and a dangerous asshole. 

Just  because someone has been good at something doesn't mean that they can maintain that competence right up until they die of old age. But, either way, this time it needs to be Hayley or Biden.

[MigL]

No one is arguing the fact that J Biden is waaaay better than D Trump.

But I do wish the Democrats had a 'stronger' candidate to field.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

But I do wish the Democrats had a 'stronger' candidate to field.

Did you put stronger in quotes because their best candidates are women? I think that's how many people think of Harris, Whitmer, Klobuchar, and Warren: they can't beat TFG because they're women, and TFG has already beaten a woman. 

I also think the DNC thinks this way. Despite being more liberal towards women, they'd still rather have Biden or Newsome or Cooper because they're men, and men appear "strong" when they're confident, whereas the perception is usually that confident women are "pushy" or "troublesome" or even "nasty".

More important to me than age is rejecting corporate PAC donations. It would be great to have citizen representation in this country again. It's been so long.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Did you put stronger in quotes because their best candidates are women? I think that's how many people think of Harris, Whitmer, Klobuchar, and Warren: they can't beat TFG because they're women, and TFG has already beaten a woman. 

I also think the DNC thinks this way. Despite being more liberal towards women, they'd still rather have Biden or Newsome or Cooper because they're men, and men appear "strong" when they're confident, whereas the perception is usually that confident women are "pushy" or "troublesome" or even "nasty".

More important to me than age is rejecting corporate PAC donations. It would be great to have citizen representation in this country again. It's been so long.

Kind of a "deplorable" assumption don't you think? The type of assumption that probably more lead to Trump winning in 2016 than the fact that the leading proponent of those assumptions was a woman. (not claiming it wasn't a factor either plus or minus, but I think the US has been ready for a woman POTUS for some time...they just tired enough of H Clinton to allow Trump to squeak out a win)

Edited February 22 by J.C.MacSwell

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Did you put stronger in quotes because their best candidates are women? I think that's how many people think of Harris, Whitmer, Klobuchar, and Warren: they can't beat TFG because they're women, and TFG has already beaten a woman. 

I also think the DNC thinks this way. Despite being more liberal towards women, they'd still rather have Biden or Newsome or Cooper because they're men, and men appear "strong" when they're confident, whereas the perception is usually that confident women are "pushy" or "troublesome" or even "nasty".

More important to me than age is rejecting corporate PAC donations. It would be great to have citizen representation in this country again. It's been so long.

My  comment related to the existing field. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 hours ago, swansont said:

But you cast this in terms of “democratic process” and “checks and balances” and it seems to me that this is the expected process. 

 

Granted it's the expected process, which makes advanced age more of an issue, not less.

 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

But given that both candidates are old, this should be a non-issue for choosing on that particular metric.

Given that both candidates are old leads to no choice on that particular metric. It hardly makes it a non-issue.

 

20 hours ago, swansont said:

Biden has a great record to run on, so there’s no reason to expect a serious primary challenge, and it’s not like there’s someone waiting in the wings that could beat TFG. So any objection along these lines would seem to be moot.

 

17 hours ago, iNow said:

 He’s been a good President during hard times with a solid team. 

 

Unfortunately that hasn't lead to a very strong approval rating. The appearance to even among those that might agree with you both is often of that of a good team lead by a man in mental decline.

Besides the increased likelihood of mental decline with age, longevity is a factor. Quite a significant percentage of 81 and 77 year olds today are expected to die before January 2029, the end of the next term.

17 hours ago, iNow said:

 

The age attack just doesn’t work for me given our candidate set since Biden had only just turned 3 when Trump was born. Biden’s old, but Trump is old and crazy and a dangerous asshole. 

Wouldn't you prefer Warren up against this old, crazy and a dangerous asshole?

[Phi for All]

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Kind of a "deplorable" assumption don't you think?

Great example! A woman tells it like she sees it (and we all saw the "basket of deplorables" attack the Capitol, right?) and gets labeled "nasty", but TFG gets props for insults that don't even hit the mark.

20 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

The type of assumption that probably more lead to Trump winning in 2016 than the fact that the leading proponent of those assumptions was a woman. (not claiming it wasn't a factor either plus or minus, but I think the US has been ready for a woman POTUS for some time...they just tired enough of H Clinton to allow Trump to squeak out a win)

Well, it's not my assumption, but I do think many Dems today don't believe one of the female candidates can stand up to TFG. They may be conflating them with Hillary, or they may feel women in general are more vulnerable targets on the campaign trail, but I haven't seen much support from Dems for anyone but Biden.

So we're stuck arguing between too much experience and too little experience, but the ones with all the experience are also heavily invested in our current political system. If we want to see any meaningful change, I don't think it's age we should be looking at. I'd vote for Bernie Sanders again and he's 2 years older than Biden. The rest of the candidates from both sides are already beholden to the billionaires. 

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Did you put stronger in quotes because their best candidates are women?

I put 'stronger' in quotes to mean a candidate that is capable of a dominant win over D Trump, so we can finally be rid of the fear of him running, and possibly winning, again.
But you make a valid point, some of their strongest candidates would be women.
In K Harris' case, however, I was more impressed with her before becoming VP than during the last 3 years.
( I assume VPs are meant to be mostly MIA, but I remember J Biden being a much more visible as VP during the Obama Presidency )
The Democrats should have used this time to make her a household name, and a contender for the Presidency. Even if J Biden squaks out a win this year, they will need someone in 4 years who is known, trusted, and not a 'scary' woman.

Scary is in quotes not because of any attitude I may have, but because a large number of Americans don't seem ready or willing to have a strong woman in the Presidency.
( us Canadians; JC, Peterkin and I, had one 30+ years ago; a Conservative, even )

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Unfortunately that hasn't lead to a very strong approval rating. The appearance to even among those that might agree with you both is often of that of a good team lead by a man in mental decline.

You’re citing the media’s framing and GOP talking points, not his record. There have been plenty of people who note that Biden is sharp and engaged, which won’t be the conclusion you draw from video clips edited to give a different impression.

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, MigL said:

The Democrats should have used this time to make her a household name, and a contender for the Presidency. Even if J Biden squaks out a win this year, they will need someone in 4 years who is known, trusted, and not a 'scary' woman.

I agree, it was definitely a missed opportunity, especially since she sort of bridges the gap for a lot of folks interested in a tough-on-crime stance. And that's where I lose interest in her, since I think it's important for the US to get out of the prison-for-profit quagmire that currently makes our entire legal system suspect. She has a plan for prison reform, but most of the problems are at the state level so I'm not sure how effective it will be. I don't really know her stance on police reform yet, but that's something else she'll feel a great deal of pressure from the states on.

16 minutes ago, MigL said:

Scary is in quotes not because of any attitude I may have, but because a large number of Americans don't seem ready or willing to have a strong woman in the Presidency.
( us Canadians; JC, Peterkin and I, had one 30+ years ago; a Conservative, even )

And isn't that weird? Why would anyone want a president/PM of either sex that they couldn't describe as "strong"? Is it better for a woman president/PM to be inoffensive and proper?

You only kept a female PM for a few months. Was she "strong", or was she a "proper" PM?

We're almost there in the US wrt electing a woman president, but it's our conservatives who stand in the way. They still revel in their misogyny and love to pound their chests, but they're also having daughters and the dim recesses of their ape brains are telling them there's a problem with the way they've been behaving.

But the age of the candidates, that's what we should be focused on...

[J.C.MacSwell]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

You’re citing the media’s framing and GOP talking points, not his record. There have been plenty of people who note that Biden is sharp and engaged, which won’t be the conclusion you draw from video clips edited to give a different impression.

I really don't have an issue with his overall record the last 3 years, especially given the hand he was dealt and continues to be dealt. But he has aged 3 years and wants to continue for another 5 rather than the one left in his mandate.

Why is the media, right left and centre, focused on GOP talking points? With regard to age and mental decline they are not the only ones bringing it up. Maybe they're not just GOP talking points?

I've known a number of people with dementia that on good days seem sharp and engaged, though even then they tend to tire easily. Now I don't know that Biden has dementia, but we do know he has had 2  brain aneurysms requiring surgery and we do know that brain trauma increases risk of mental decline with age, beyond that of a significant association with aging itself.

And we've heard him tell untrue stories that could medically be described as confabulation (as opposed to alternatively... intentionally lying)

But yeah, I'd still take him over Trump.

6 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I agree, it was definitely a missed opportunity,

Not sure I would agree. She had lost a lot of popularity and hiding in the weeds while working in the background may have been best for her. I see at least a possibility of a come back.

Currently she's still your Nation's plan B...compare with Plan C...House Speaker Mike Johnson

13 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

We're almost there in the US wrt electing a woman president, but it's our conservatives who stand in the way. They still revel in their misogyny and love to pound their chests, but they're also having daughters and the dim recesses of their ape brains are telling them there's a problem with the way they've been behaving.

But the age of the candidates, that's what we should be focused on...

Agree. Haley would be much better than either Biden or Trump, regardless of the fact she's younger and sharper.

[swansont]

43 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why is the media, right left and centre, focused on GOP talking points?

That’s a good question - ratings, perhaps - but it doesn’t change the facts. e.g. the economy is doing great, with unemployment numbers not seen in 50 years, real wage increases and a record high stock market, but it’s not reported that way. Perhaps you should ask the media/punditry why.

43 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

With regard to age and mental decline they are not the only ones bringing it up. Maybe they're not just GOP talking points?

Trump’s very real issues are not being discussed much at all. Why is that?

[MigL]

Another problem which your American election system pioneered ( and now seems to be spreading to other democracies around the world ) is the inability of your two parties, and their Presidential nominees, to present a platform to the electorate, Probably because House and Senate cannot work together, or with the President, to get anything done.

All we hear in election ads is the 'mis-steps of the opponent(s).

You hear it here too
"Sure Biden is old, and may have lost some of his wits, but at least he's not crazy Trump."

And from the other side
"At least Trump can find his way off the stage and doesn't need to be escorted."

Aren't you guys setting the Presidential bar a bit low, if all you need is to be able to find your way off a stage and not be crazy while doing it?

( says the guy with the drama teacher in 'black face' PM who got elected on his father's name and hasn't kept a single election promise )

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s a good question - ratings, perhaps - but it doesn’t change the facts. e.g. the economy is doing great, with unemployment numbers not seen in 50 years, real wage increases and a record high stock market, but it’s not reported that way. Perhaps you should ask the media/punditry why.

Trump’s very real issues are not being discussed much at all. Why is that?

I'm hearing a fair bit about Trump having issues on a number of fronts. Unwillingness to comment on Navalny, asking Senate and House members to work against the border deal, very significant legal issues including rape and business fraud charges with very high negative monetary outcomes, age related concerns of his own, Zelensky calling him out on his unexplained "solution",  etc.

 

Also hear a lot about the US economy doing better than expected, inflation reasonable compared to much of the World and better than predicted, etc. I know Biden didn't defeat US Covid singlehandedly with hydroxychloroquine, but we can't expect him to do everything....

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

We're almost there in the US wrt electing a woman president, but it's our conservatives who stand in the way. They still revel in their misogyny and love to pound their chests,

What's kind of funny is that several deep red states are noted for being early in advancing women in politics.  Nebraska elected the first GOP woman governor, and Texas and Wyoming also elected women early on.  Wyoming was also the first state in the Union to give women the vote.   But of course today's GOP is in many respects a party of regression, far removed from its historical roots.

I noticed btw that the Alabama supreme court justice who recently delivered the theocratic decision on frozen embryos being people and how we must fear the wrath of God if an embryo is dropped on the lab floor....has to retire at the end of his present term because Alabama sets mandatory retirement of justices at age 70.  Hmm.

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm hearing a fair bit about Trump having issues on a number of fronts. Unwillingness to comment on Navalny, asking Senate and House members to work against the border deal, very significant legal issues including rape and business fraud charges with very high negative monetary outcomes, age related concerns of his own, Zelensky calling him out on his unexplained "solution",  etc.

But what about his cognitive issues. Do they get as much coverage as Biden's alleged issues?

[J.C.MacSwell]

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

But what about his cognitive issues. Do they get as much coverage as Biden's alleged issues?

No. Not that I can tell. Just the odd bit. 

How will we even know if or when he's in decline?

They do point out his constant contradictions, from stretching the truth to outright lies, but since he's done that forever no one associates it with anything but Trump being Trump...except in some circumstances the Law...

Back in the day even a small fraction of the type of things he says on a regular basis would kill a political career...we need those days back.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

But what about his cognitive issues. Do they get as much coverage as Biden's alleged issues?

 Seems like there's a tendency to view his incoherence as more a style, "he was riffing," or as playful humor.   I think this underscores that everyone, Republicans included, hold Biden to a much higher standard - it's interesting how many Republicans are unaware that they do this (and that they therefore are tacitly acknowledging Biden functions cognitively at a much higher level).  Trump gets up and manages to deliver a few slogans and snipes, and doesn't wet his pants - that's all the GOP expects from a puppet whose strings are operated by the Steves (Miller and Bannon) and other Far Right advisors.  I would guess a lot of Republicans know this and cynically accept this is the way that Zeon can be conquered (to use a Star Trek analogy - the episode with the Starfleet historian who is heavily drugged and used as a figurehead).

 

[iNow]

9 hours ago, MigL said:

I do wish the Democrats had a 'stronger' candidate to field.

I believe they do, but the President has said he's running for reelection and "the Democrats" weren't asked for their opinion on the matter. Challenging a sitting president in your own party is also quite an uphill climb quite likely to fail spectacularly. 

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Wouldn't you prefer Warren up against this old, crazy and a dangerous asshole?

She'd be more likely to lose than Biden, IMO. 

4 hours ago, MigL said:

Aren't you guys setting the Presidential bar a bit low, if all you need is to be able to find your way off a stage and not be crazy while doing it?

Please tell me how I personally can place a better presidential candidate on the ballot. Do I need to save up my UPC codes from Betty Crocker products and mail them in perhaps? Maybe dance a little jig while singing a sea shanty? 

26 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Seems like there's a tendency to view his incoherence as more a style, "he was riffing," or as playful humor

The tendency is toward hypocrisy and doublespeak. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

Please tell me how I personally can place a better presidential candidate on the ballot. Do I need to save up my UPC codes from Betty Crocker products and mail them in perhaps? Maybe dance a little jig while singing a sea shanty? 

 

Exactly. Not the most democratic process.

But I guess 36th place isn't bad:

36

United States of America

0.811

Deficient Democracy

https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking

At least at this point it's still a democracy.

But as Swansont correctly pointed out, that's the expected process.

[dimreepr]

19 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Did you put stronger in quotes because their best candidates are women? I think that's how many people think of Harris, Whitmer, Klobuchar, and Warren: they can't beat TFG because they're women, and TFG has already beaten a woman. 

I also think the DNC thinks this way. Despite being more liberal towards women, they'd still rather have Biden or Newsome or Cooper because they're men, and men appear "strong" when they're confident, whereas the perception is usually that confident women are "pushy" or "troublesome" or even "nasty".

Unfounded fear is still frightening, but do you really think a Biden voter would prefer TFG to an image of their scary mom/granny.

[Janus]

22 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Unfortunately that hasn't lead to a very strong approval rating.
 

Approval ratings in today's political climate are a bit meaningless.  How many disapprove because they think he's "too far to the Left?" and how many because they think he's "too far to the Right" How many give him a poor rating based on just one single issue? etc.