|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office.
I think this argument is generally ageist but if it gets Democrats to remove people like Pelosi and Feinstein it's not all bad I guess.
Maybe confiscate the fortunes of people like Warren Buffet too, lest he invest everything in V-Bucks after a great-(great-?)grand kid catches him in an episode?
Maybe Sheldon Adelson and Rockefeller too, there's a non-zero chance they aren't even alive and are the animated dead by way of spell or ritual.
|
They should do it like Canada and have a stronger party system. Im not sure Americans will want that though :p
|
On June 03 2019 10:29 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2019 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 03 2019 06:06 Liquid`Drone wrote:
yeah agreed, to me this is almost approaching 'hillary is suffering from some terrible illness look at her nearly fainting and needing help to enter her car' territory.
He does constantly lie. That much is indisputable, and it's disqualifying. Going for a 'he seems to be suffering from dementia' based on occasional slurring (which can happen to many people and doesn't have to mean dementia) or him 'forgetting' stuff (which he only does when it's something he wants to lie about) is a stupid attack because it moves the discussion from something no sane and observant person can dispute (trump constantly lies) into something uncertain. Not to mention that attempting to diagnose people is best reserved to professionals. imo the last 20 some odd posts fall into this "stupid attack because it moves the discussion from something no sane and observant person can dispute (trump constantly lies) into something uncertain." The thing is that it's cathartic, Shambala mentioned this before. It's not conducive to discussion imo and is more emblamatic of a refusal to engage with the serious issues and instead focus on something they think they can win at ("Trump's terrible!"). As you point out though, by wandering into the armchair psychology, they shoot themselves in the foot. The thread would be better off if people discussed Trump’s bitchin’ new haircut instead.
i gotta be honest, i kind of like it. this photo in particular, a very ‘WHERES JOHNNY?’ vibe. but in a good way. i mean he could be Jack Nicholson’s twin.
but in all seriousness too, i would definitely support this hairstyle change.
ah shit i have no interest in the current convo to make this look like anything other than me loving the dumbest ‘news story’ around. but i have no regrets. it’s pretty sweet.
|
|
|
On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1#
I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers.
|
Likely it has more to do with the Media creating "Stars" making lesser known candidates unreachable for not very interested people.
I blame basically all of classic media and tons of new media for this.
Politicians should be treated with some respect but not like pop stars or sportsclubs.
|
On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers.
I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party.
Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen.
|
On June 03 2019 13:01 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2019 06:21 micronesia wrote:
The concern over the president possibly having dementia (or the early stages of it) is not necessarily a political/partisan one. Liquid'Drone, you are assigning to concerned people the objective of starting a discussion solely to make the president look indisputably bad. That certainly is true for some, but doesn't need to be true for others. For example, it's possible me focusing my posts more on how Trump can't be trusted because of his personality will do more damage to his defense against a possible impeachment hearing or simply the 2020 election. Asking a question about whether or not he's suffering from a condition which may explain his behavior could possibly muddy the waters regarding the other focus and actually make it easier for die-hard Trump supporters to map a route to re-election. However, I may still pursue Trump's physical health because my posting in political threads is not singularly inspired by a desire to see Trump removed from office by election or impeached. To assume otherwise is counterproductive.
That's not to say I generally disagree with the statements that "either truth makes Trump unfit." Indeed. I am just as concerned about putting Biden in office. Both he and Trump are pretty darn old, and are in the age range where a fair number of different physical and mental ailments frequently start manifesting. A person who is in their 50s or early 60s usually won't be all that different after 4 years, but once they get past their 70s, they can start changing rapidly in very short periods of time. If Biden becomes the Democratic candidate and wins the election next year, he will be 78 when he is sworn into office. In Trump's case, he will be 74. In either case, they would be the oldest person sworn into office, beating out Reagan for his second term. I honestly believe that, just like there should be an upper age limit for having a driver's license (or at least yearly testing to show a person is still capable of driving safely), there should be an upper age limit for running for office, be it president or any other type of representative. For president, there's a lower limit, so I can't see why there shouldn't also be an upper limit. There should be no questions about the physical and mental capabilities for someone with a job that important.
I honestly don't know why the age thing is an argument.
Look at Sanders... He does more in one day than I be any of us do in 1 week, and doesn't it with fire in his gut, real passion for the things he cares about. As a much younger person than him, I'm constantly impressed by what he does in the world.
I would 20000% want someone like that to be president. I don't see where age is affecting him other than the potential to die of old age during his term. Maybe he dies of old age, but thats why you have a good vp pick. I just don't see the problem.
I pick Sanders as my #1 based on everything he has accomplished that because he keeps fighting for the things I've always wanted in a leader. To think I would be like, "well... he represents everything I respect and would want in a leader, but he's old... maybe I'll go for beto."
I just can't comprehend doing that.
Also, I would be equally as happy with Warren. Not because she is a woman, not because she is younger, but because she represent the same things as Bernie and is a real fighter.
|
On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen.
I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen".
Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative.
|
The newest Congress is pushed down the average age by 10 years (47 compared to 57 before). So apparently young(er) people are starting to show up.
The Presidential elections are obviously a different beast because of the cost required (both financially and in political connections) but there is perhaps hope that at some point the President won't be a pensioner.
|
On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative.
You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well).
|
On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1#
I'm not expecting the US to cover the costs for cleaning up the shores and sea if the oil was spilled as I expect ? Or were they smart enough to blow them up empty before they refuelled... Doubt it.
|
Huh, the article seems kind of strange? How can an oil tanker be in Syria? An oil tanker has to be on water unless it's on a dry dock or something. The location seems non existent in the article. How does an Iranian oil tanker make it all the way to the Syrian coast from Iran, and then be attacked and destroyed? Or perhaps it's a tiny tanker sailing up the local rivers. More importantly, an act of war, against civilains, against a practically defenceless nation. Most of Iranian oil is going to China and India and Turkey; if USA actually cares, they'll be blowing up the tankers there; don't know why the article implies it's all going to Syria.
Anyways, I doubt anybody has ever said modern war is good for the environment.
|
On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well).
Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016
|
On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I think, for the Democrats, it's more that those younger folks that do come up with good ideas get chased away by the establishment Democrats or ridiculed rather than have their ideas considered at all. The DCCC, for example, has seemingly made it pretty clear they are uncomfortable with more AOC-type people coming in and challenging incumbents, since a lot of these newer style of Democrats rail against the corporate and wealthy donor fundraising that is the bread and butter of the DCCC. Democratic leadership also continues to ignore the potential of policies that poll well in Democrat, Republican and swing states. Medicare For All, for example, has polled at around 70% total support across multiple polls but Pelosi, Schumer, and many other senior Democrats speak as if it is this vastly unpopular policy idea. Can't have that medical insurance company lobbying gravy train stopping, now can we?
I mean, just look what happened when a John Delaney tried the "Medicare For All is bad policy" line at the California Democratic Convention:
|
On June 04 2019 02:52 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I think, for the Democrats, it's more that those younger folks that do come up with good ideas get chased away by the establishment Democrats or ridiculed rather than have their ideas considered at all. The DCCC, for example, has seemingly made it pretty clear they are uncomfortable with more AOC-type people coming in and challenging incumbents, since a lot of these newer style of Democrats rail against the corporate and wealthy donor fundraising that is the bread and butter of the DCCC. Democratic leadership also continues to ignore the potential of policies that poll well in Democrat, Republican and swing states. Medicare For All, for example, has polled at around 70% total support across multiple polls but Pelosi, Schumer, and many other senior Democrats speak as if it is this vastly unpopular policy idea. Can't have that medical insurance company lobbying gravy train stopping, now can we? I mean, just look what happened when a John Delaney tried the "Medicare For All is bad policy" line at the California Democratic Convention: https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1135272316072595462
From my perspective, politicians (media and increasingly celebrity/influencers) function to convince the population that they are enjoying (or find it at least tolerable) the arrangement they're in. They aren't there to advocate on our behalf opposed to corporations/power as people sort of think, those were unions (to a degree).
Once you apply that lens, Pelosi, Delaney, MSNBC, JayZ (endorsing Hillary), Trump and the rest of it make a lot more sense imo. It's hard to explain this whole system and the situation we're in otherwise.
The other major explanation was Russia and that went from Trump's cabinet being Russian lackeys because Putin maybe had a piss tape to probably everyone Trump likes being pardoned after the 2020 election (if he waits that long) and trash tier accountability all around imo.
|
On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016
But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing.
Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves.
|
On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves.
There's a lot of reasons but I'd give the top spot to the hegemonic myth of meritocracy. Trump was able to overcome that because for Republicans running a successful (meaning profitable for you personally no matter the cost so long as it's defensibly legal) business is better than 20 years in government but Trump also made a lot of political connections from the corporate side.
Obama was unique. First Black president gave him more room to maneuver for a Black candidate and support because Black people weren't going to pass up (after he showed he could win) that opportunity and most of us vote Dem anyway. He was also the best of a generation when it came to oratory. Bush had nepotism and an older generation working in his favor which is why he ended up with a bunch of his dad's leftovers in his cabinet that basically went on to run his administration and the Afghanistan/Iraq wars.
|
On June 04 2019 03:30 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2019 02:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 01:58 Acrofales wrote:On June 04 2019 01:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 04 2019 00:54 Simberto wrote:On June 04 2019 00:39 iamthedave wrote:On June 03 2019 23:18 JimmiC wrote:On June 03 2019 13:16 TheYango wrote:
Trump, Clinton, Biden, and Bernie are all too damn old. I'm pretty on board with the idea of an upper age limit. It makes no sense to have a lower limit of 35, but no upper limit when the average 70 year old has far less cognitive ability than the average 35-year-old. Even a 70-year old who does not have dementia is still extremely likely to be below a level of cognition I would be comfortable with for any elected office. It is really strange how these people just keep skewing older and older, I bet the average age of a politician in Canada is 20 years or more younger. I think a lot of wisdom comes with age but you are certainly not a quick as you once were. They really need some balance, like if the President is going to be in in 70's have a VP in their 40's. Because of discrimination issues I don't think you could do a upper age limit (I could see someone challenging the lower one as well) but I do think that yearly cognitive tests once you reach say 65 would be reasonable. And they should be done by a independent doctor. It doesn't feel like there are any independent people left but that would allow the few that are still capable to do it and people to have faith that they could. Here is another example of why war is not good for the environment. Not only do you have all the damage from the planes themselves but I'm fairly sure blowing up oil tankers is not proper disposal. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/US-Forces-Blow-Up-Three-Oil-Tankers-In-Syria-Enforcing-Oil-Embargo.html?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=push_notification&utm_campaign=PushCrew_notification_1559358724&_p_c=1# I think it's just luck of the draw. Right now Trump's the right's pick, and Bernie seems to be the left's pick. Old dudes are in, middle-aged dudes are out. It's not the fault of the older generation that the young(er) 'uns can't come up with a good idea to save their careers. I don't agree. The US system requires you to acquire a lot of reputation and favors to even think about running for president. The older you are, the more things you have done in the political sphere, and thus the more likely you are to place higher among the group of possible candidates due to people having heard of you and you having acquired connections to rich donors and powerful people in your party. Usually, this is counterbalanced by two effects. People deciding to retire, which they simply don't seem to do in US politics, and old people appearing kind of crusty and oldfashioned, which leads to younger people (i say younger, these younger people are still way older then most on this forum) with "fresh ideas" looking more attractive to voters. For some reason, that also does not seem to happen. I think 2016 is a textbook example of why "that also does not seem to happen". Every time a politician is looking to be replaced, up pops the newest spawn of Satan/strong challenger to run against them ensuring a vibrant debate culminating in a replacing of the old guard doesn't happen, lest we risk the alternative. You mean how Martin O'Malley never stood a chance? The other 3 (Clinton herself, Sanders and Webb) were all well over 65 (I assume that's the retirement age in the US as well). Mostly referring to the constant refrains about how the primary was basically a formality and how Biden is now leading the Dem primary, and when those who really don't like Sanders are jammed, they will use the "There's so little unity among Dems, I wish they fell in line like Republicans" refrains we saw in 2016 But those seem like two somewhat separate issues. "The establishment" wanting centrist status quo candidates doesn't mean those candidates have to be ancient. O'Malley was pretty much a clone of Hillary when considering policy points, but was 20 years younger. But had no backing. Meanwhile, the front runner of the more left-wing candidates is even older than Hillary. And all of the younger candidates are treated as opportunistic upstarts with not much chance. Why? Obama wasn't ancient. Nor was Bush before him. It seems to be something of the zeitgeist where baby-boomers are clutching their last chance for power or so? I dunno. But I'd rather see them train young people who have similar ideologies than frantically hold onto power themselves.
The problem that the Democrats currently have isn't about party leaders refusing to step aside so much as it is about a genuine ideological schism in the party that is worse than what the Republicans are dealing with. The Democrat base -- particularly its younger elements -- has moved drastically to the left over the past twenty years as they have increasingly embraced socialism and identity politics. Hickenlooper just got booed for saying that socialism isn't the answer over the weekend. Biden was relentlessly attacked to the wild applause of the audience. Hell, and notwithstanding Biden's current lead (which I firmly believe is illusory), I have serious doubts as to whether the Democrat party is capable of nominating a straight, white male to be president. And I haven't even gotten into how far tilted the base is due to Trump. When Pelosi comes off as being the reasonable democrat on the national stage, you know that the party has problems.
|
That having more than 2 political ideas is considered a problem in a nation of 300 million is beyond absurd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
