179 year old man mocks 182 year old man for how old he is.
Go easy on them, they haven’t been handed their talking points yet, so are contractually obligated to continue with the last set they were given.
Oh… it’s mocking when Dems do it…
Why isn’t it just behavioural parity?
Are both sides not allowed to behave the same? Be equal?
Are both sides not allowed to behave the same? Be equal?
No, because democratic voters at least occasionally have principles.
I get what you’re saying here, but if Dems start acting “equivalently” to Republicans we’re gonna have a real big, serious problem.
We already have a real big, serious problem.
Though I agree, dropping to their level just let’s them go lower.
Imho it does nothing.
No dropping or raising of the level from dema has affected maga discourse in the least.
They will do the exact same shit. We have had too many years to learn that lesson now.
Either smack back (rhetorically) or they will just make up something anyway.
I’m not asking Dems to break the rules. I would like Dems to treat the left as actual partners and take their policy seriously, instead of “we need those people to shut up or Republicans are going to burn down everything”. Republicans do not do that with their own reactionaries. They mine them for ideas and find ways to implement those policies through a long game.
That’s the point of Trump’s leadership style. Things aren’t equal. There are rules for other people, but they don’t affect him though. Hypocrisy among his flock is a virtue. It shows they will all reward each other.
When presented with the American constitution or trump, and they chose trump, its self evident that they just want a king.
So many well meaning centrists and left leaning people in America have cut maga so much slack for 8 years…
Maga definitionally wants to replace the United states constitution and establishment. The conversation should be happening on those terms. But most the outspoken left leaning voices are too scared.
Imagine if dems pick an older candidate.
Because he IS too old. Biden did the right thing. Selflessly put the country before himself and listened to his party. I don’t think Trump would ever have enough morals or integrity to do that in a million years unfortunately. So we’ll have to beat the old loon and his band of circus freaks at the polls, again.
Biden was never supposed to run for a second term, and then dragged his feet until the very last minute. The selfless thing would’ve been to step aside for someone younger before the race began
agreed, never should have tried for the second bite.
however… dems now have an opportunity to own the news cycle from here until the election. if they do even a halfway decent job, we start trending from “narrow loss” -> “political landslide”.
Not that I’m suggesting that this was intentional or that he did right to wait, but there are a few upsides. Trump and the Republicans were fully prepared and frothing to take on that blubbering old man from that last debate, but now they’re actually going to make a case for Trump over a (hopefully) real contender. And many Democrat voters went from feeling defeated and apathetic, potentially enough to not even bother voting, to being charged with a second chance and a (again, hopefully) more exciting candidate to support. If Biden had declared his intention not to run again before the primaries, the Republicans would have had much longer to prepare and pick apart someone who wasn’t such an easy target, and Dems would have been infighting over the nuances of a dozen candidates and pissed off at each other. And, if Harris is the presumptive nomination, for better or worse, the knee jerk reaction from the Right will probably be to play up the racist and sexist angles, which should drive moderates away from the right, not away from Harris.
It’s all conjecture, but I only see this as a net positive compared to where we were yesterday.
He only planned to serve one term? I’m sure you have a source for that…?
UPDATE: I was wrong, they have a source!
lol editing to defend yourself before anyone responds? I can’t even downvote buddy.
Yeah I was mistaken, I checked and it seems like if anyone said that it was the campaign and not Biden himself.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/11/biden-single-term-082129
Still far more selfless than Trump though. I’m sure we can absolutely agree there.
I honestly wonder if it was always the plan to waste the GOPs money on a campaign against Biden up until the nomination was locked in. Biden did say he’d be a 1 term president after all. The move makes Biden come off as the better person, makes room for a (slightly) younger, far more capable and progressive candidate, and wasted a ton of the GOPs effort and money. I’m truly hopeful that not only will Harris win, but due to all the shit slinging going on in the house and Senate, the left wins back a ton of seats making it so Harris’s term is as effective as possible. I’m 90% sure most seats in the house are up for grabs this coming vote.
And everyone should have foreseen the age problem with Biden running a second term…
I think most will agree, dnc should have started pushing another candidate the week after jan6.
Biden himself ran on being one term.
He never had plans to only run one term.
I think most people had no idea he was significantly declining, hence the astonishment at the debate. And some people around him seem to have been encouraging the denial (or worse). I’m unclear if he was doing better many months ago before primaries.
I can’t imagine how insulated and reliant on advisors and other employees the president becomes. Quickly surrounded by people who have no interest in being the bearer of bad news. Probably akin to billionaires, and we see what they mutate into (some kind of Musk-like creature).
I’m so relieved that Biden was able to come to this painful decision, even if it was late. On the bright side, at least there’s less time for the GOP to smear the new nominee. And no more televised convention for them to host the lies for free.
There was a significant effort to hide Biden’s disability. The upper echelons in the Dem party have a lot to answer for.
We just need a maximum age for running for president. Id like my president’s to be of a normal working age. If you’re going to be over 65 by the end of the term then that’s too old imo since they would be older than 5/6 of the population.
Maybe it was the way I worded my comment before, but I got downvoted for criticising that too many politicians are too old to still be in office. I got response from someone that age shouldn’t matter if the person is competent.
Then it occurred to me that maybe it was boomers who downvoted me for hitting a nerve. And I should have responded that if there is minium required age to become POTUS, why shouldn’t there be a maximum age?
That being said, it also occurred to me that there is ageism against younger people in politics. The voting age in many places do not want to be lowered as youths are told to be too immature to vote. But how come no one says old people are too old and senile to vote? I don’t mean to go into old vs young people mudslinging, but old people have elected representatives that only benefit their own demographic and not for everyone in the country. One reason for the housing crisis is that old people elect politicians who do not want to build more affordable housing so as not to devalue their property.
I think the problem is that the PFC is often not fully formed, on average, until 25. I still think people as young as 16 should be allowed to vote, though. However, on the other end, I don’t think arbitrary years is worth anything (and will be increasingly worthless with time as medicine continues to change the game - imagine nootropics and life extension) - the important thing is mental acuity for the job, no matter the age. If someone wants to run for office and they are 250 (assuming for the moment life extension/age slowing/age reversal becomes everyday), I shouldn’t care. What I should care about is their ability to do the job. Ideally, we’d even be able to screen out psychopaths and other troublesome traits, but give it time, I guess.
Ideally, we’d even be able to screen out psychopaths and other troublesome traits, but give it time, I guess.
No you don’t want that. That’s one massive door to dictatorship if I ever saw one. Imagine the power of declining presidential candidates because you declare them troublesome.
Voting rights aren’t handed out because of pragmatic reasons, but because of fundamental principals.You don’t get to vote because you’re able to make good decisions, you get to vote because you’re a human citizen of a particular country and on that basis alone you get to vote. It would be very difficult to objectively determine who is able to make good decisions. And even it that were possible, it would be difficult to decide where to draw the line. Of course that children don’t get to vote is completely inconsistent and the age that makes the difference is completely arbitrary. But to be honest, I’d much rather allow children of all ages to vote than restrict people beyond a certain age. Check out some Noam Chomsky interview of recent years, would it really be fair if such a bright mind was not allowed to vote?
Agreed. I am sick and tired of this country being run by workaholics. I want to retire some day. I want a candidate who shares that value, and is motivated to build and promote an economic, legal, and political environment where people can actually retire.
That means a first-time candidate should be no older than 57, and an incumbent no older than 61.
Kamala would be over 65 by term 2’s end. I think 70 is a good number but honestly I overwhelmingly agree with the sentiment. Make the max age lower and the right candidates will “magically” appear. The pecking order today sadly includes people in their 60s and 70s because we almost never elect different people for house/senate.
we almost never elect different people for house/senate.
Which is because of how we pick committee positions. People with longer tenures get better spots.
I figured it was more about how people essentially ignore senate and house positions unless someone is retiring. They just vote the same way again and again.
All people talk about by and large is the presidential election. I know very few people who know anything about federal senate and house reps, let alone anything at all about state senate and house reps. They think presidents decide everything when what’s really broken is congress. If congress wasn’t f’d they could fix the supreme court. If they fixed the supreme court then dictatorial law (and draconian interpretations of law) would change.
In terms of committees, I figured the people who got the coveted ways and means spots were the ones with the most power and influence (money), not just old timers. Jason Smith is the chair of the house ways and means committee and he’s only 44. Senate side is over 70, though senators on average are much older than those in the house of reps.
