EPTAverage age in senate is 65, while average age in the house is 56 iirc.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4058
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4729 Posts
Average age in senate is 65, while average age in the house is 56 iirc. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7271 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44137 Posts
On September 01 2023 04:05 oBlade wrote: If Trump dies, we will blame whoever shot or exploded him. His "horrible diet" of diet coke, not drinking alcohol or smoking or doing drugs while taking statins long-term aside, it's apparent he's in better health than Biden was when he was 77, compare their levels of activity and ability to speak and move and be active while having their wits about them. His father lived close to 100. Biden falls asleep, can't speak, and does what he's told. If he dies in office, we won't be blaming his age but a gust of wind. The reason it's more relevant in his case is his VP lacks the basic competence you'd expect of a high schooler. Republicans have to actually be competent to a higher standard in order to have any chance against a machine of people who vote D no matter what without talking or thinking about any issues, because everyone else is doing it and the media lockstep guides them to vote that way. That applies to Republicans' VPs also, they can't afford to put people as incompetent as Harris on the ticket because they won't just get voted for anyway. While both sides need to consider who the VP is - since Biden and Trump are both old - the assertion that Trump will outlive Biden is unfounded. Experts have actually run the numbers and found that Biden is more likely to outlive Trump: "Biden is expected to outlive Trump, even though he is three years older. The reasons are that Biden has an exceptional health profile for a man his age (e.g., ideal Body Mass Index [BMI], physically active, few prescription medications, no identifiable lethal conditions, excellent cholesterol profile, low inflammation). He also has a family history of longevity. Trump also shares most of this profile, except his obesity and sedentary lifestyle work against his familial longevity history and his otherwise healthy biological profile." https://www.icaa.cc/media/presidential_lifespan_and_healthspan-draft_for_release_1.pdf So if you want to say you're concerned about both of them dying in office, I'd agree that that's valid. But don't overreach by saying Biden is more likely to die before Trump. Biden might die first, because anyone *could* die before Trump, but it's absolutely hypocritical when a Republican points out Biden's age and mortality. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24934 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44137 Posts
On September 01 2023 08:58 WombaT wrote: Also let’s not forget the fun threat of assassination as a curveball Right. Trump will eventually die because he's old and fat, and then [input next Republican presidential nominee here] will become famous for peddling the claim that Trump was assassinated. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
micronesia
United States24660 Posts
On August 31 2023 19:44 Uldridge wrote: Now flip it on its head and think how Republicans are looking at your metaphor: The carefully built houses are being set on fire one by one. The Republicans are desperately trying to either rebuild their old manors, or trying to put out the fires asap and fix the damage. So let's make it a bit more nuanced where houses are continuously being built and parts (or entireties) are set on fire. This applies to both parties. Now each side puts effort into preventing the fire from happening or by repairing the damage asap. Because saying GOP is just burning and Dems are just building is just another way of polarizing the conversation. It's all apples to apples, you're just looking at apples and saying they're oranges because you don't like the taste. I'm basically in the Dems camp (factually I'm far left leaning though). I'm just making an effort here to be the Devil's advocate, probably not really succeeding, because my logic may be flawed at times. This started with the point of "isn't it strange that 'the hard fought battles' of the Democrats can be so easily overturned by the Republicans?" I provided the simple idea that moving forward to new ideas is generally more difficult to effect in the U.S. political system than moving backwards to traditional ideas which we've already experienced or keeping us back at those baselines. I wasn't saying returning to traditional ideas is always bad, or that moving forward toward a new idea is always good. I've seen some horrible attempts/successes by the GOP to get good laws/policies repealed, and I've seen horrible policies/laws driven by democrats to implementation, including very recently. I'm just saying it's not a level playing field when trying to compare how difficult it is to achieve what you want in politics (which is the only reason why I responded to your original line of questions; I wasn't necessarily defending the democrats overall... it's just a poor way to attack them among many good ways to). Your repeated attempts to twist my point into something that you think you can defeat is probably not that helpful so if you're doing just to play devil's advocate I wish you'd do something else. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24934 Posts
On September 01 2023 09:06 JimmiC wrote: It was Tucker carlsons last big ridiculous statement so then it has to be immediately regurgitated as “fact”. Sometimes I wonder if he just wants to see how far into wacky land and get away with it. Not kidding. https://thehill.com/homenews/4181123-tucker-carlson-were-speeding-toward-trump-assassination/amp/ I was being semi-serious, it takes one whack job and things are more fractious than they’ve ever been at least in my lifetime, so much visceral hatred. I’m surprised we don’t see more than we do. Obviously a desirous state of affairs but given how poisoned things are right now | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4729 Posts
On September 01 2023 09:14 micronesia wrote: This started with the point of "isn't it strange that 'the hard fought battles' of the Democrats can be so easily overturned by the Republicans?" I provided the simple idea that moving forward to new ideas is generally more difficult to effect in the U.S. political system than moving backwards to traditional ideas which we've already experienced or keeping us back at those baselines. I wasn't saying returning to traditional ideas is always bad, or that moving forward toward a new idea is always good. I've seen some horrible attempts/successes by the GOP to get good laws/policies repealed, and I've seen horrible policies/laws driven by democrats to implementation, including very recently. I'm just saying it's not a level playing field when trying to compare how difficult it is to achieve what you want in politics (which is the only reason why I responded to your original line of questions; I wasn't necessarily defending the democrats overall... it's just a poor way to attack them among many good ways to). Your repeated attempts to twist my point into something that you think you can defeat is probably not that helpful so if you're doing just to play devil's advocate I wish you'd do something else. When conservatives try to push their agenda into legislation, it is easier to do then when conservatives try to push progressive legislation. I can't put my interpretation on what you said with the house burning down and this response any more clearly. If this is still an incorrect assessment of your idea, then I should give up I think because I'm not getting it. I thought there's a fragile equilibrium which is the current state of legislature. This can either be revised in the conservative or progressive sense, whichever meaning you ascribe to progressive or conservative. Then again, I wonder how it's so much more easy to say, something that has been worded carefully and been revised thoroughly before putting it into the codex of the law: "yeah that thing over there, we don't want to do that anymore, scratch it. In fact, make it even worse for alot of people." Simple majority passing bills is obviously a problem, I can see that. But you still need 60% of votes to vote for passing a bill or not. So how should that be easier for one party over the other? I guess I may need a thorough explanation on Dems vs Reps dynamics in House and Senate for me to actually get it. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1054 Posts
On September 01 2023 15:46 Uldridge wrote: When conservatives try to push their agenda into legislation, it is easier to do then when conservatives try to push progressive legislation. I can't put my interpretation on what you said with the house burning down and this response any more clearly. If this is still an incorrect assessment of your idea, then I should give up I think because I'm not getting it. I thought there's a fragile equilibrium which is the current state of legislature. This can either be revised in the conservative or progressive sense, whichever meaning you ascribe to progressive or conservative. Then again, I wonder how it's so much more easy to say, something that has been worded carefully and been revised thoroughly before putting it into the codex of the law: "yeah that thing over there, we don't want to do that anymore, scratch it. In fact, make it even worse for alot of people." Simple majority passing bills is obviously a problem, I can see that. But you still need 60% of votes to vote for passing a bill or not. So how should that be easier for one party over the other? I guess I may need a thorough explanation on Dems vs Reps dynamics in House and Senate for me to actually get it. As an example of going backwards being much easier than going forwards, let's take healthcare as an example. If you want to pass a healthcare bill, you need a certain percentage of the senate to agree on a specific bill (also the house, but we'll ignore them for this). Some senators want a public option (Medicare for anyone who wants it) that will compete with private insurance. Other senators want Medicare for all and destroy the private insurance companies. Some want Medicare to be wildly expanded and improved from its current form. Others want it to only cover a part of healthcare (like emergency room visits only). You can get down into the nitty gritty of it and each senator that is pro expansion of medicare would want it to look a little bit different. These are all senators that generally agree on the basic premise of expanding Medicare to more people (it is currently only for the elderly). In reality, you also have plenty of senators who don't want to expand Medicare at all and may even want to shrink it or destroy it. Then you have all the pork. Some senator from X state wants certain provisions that protect insurance companies in his state. Another senator wants to protect pharmaceutical manufacturers in his state. Some senator might want to create jobs in his state and demands a customer support call-center be created in his state. You get 100 different people all pulling in different directions. You can ignore about 40 of them in the senate, but ignoring them will often anger another 10 or so. It takes a huge amount of work and compromise so the bill that passes is some major compromise that satisfies nobody. The ACA (Obamacare) enshrined profits for insurance companies, but also did some things to get everyone onto an insurance plan (can't reject applicants for pre-existing conditions or cancel people's insurance when they get majorly sick). It took a ton of work and compromise to get that watered down bill, but it was still better than what existed previously. Then look at what happened early in Trump's term. The Republicans gained control and they said they'd "repeal and replace" the ACA. Repeal was relatively easy. All they needed to do was get enough people to vote to repeal the ACA. Can they get enough senators to vote against a monstrosity of a bill? They almost did. They also never even got close to the "replace" part because that part is difficult. Rather than voting to remove something they didn't like, they'd have to actually work together and create something they did want. That was never going to happen on the Republican side when it comes to Healthcare. But it is a great example of how easy it is to destroy something that was extremely difficult to build. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3849 Posts
It's another example of a consistent conservative advantage. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4729 Posts
On September 01 2023 16:13 RenSC2 wrote: As an example of going backwards being much easier than going forwards, let's take healthcare as an example. If you want to pass a healthcare bill, you need a certain percentage of the senate to agree on a specific bill (also the house, but we'll ignore them for this). + Show Spoiler + Some senators want a public option (Medicare for anyone who wants it) that will compete with private insurance. Other senators want Medicare for all and destroy the private insurance companies. Some want Medicare to be wildly expanded and improved from its current form. Others want it to only cover a part of healthcare (like emergency room visits only). You can get down into the nitty gritty of it and each senator that is pro expansion of medicare would want it to look a little bit different. These are all senators that generally agree on the basic premise of expanding Medicare to more people (it is currently only for the elderly). In reality, you also have plenty of senators who don't want to expand Medicare at all and may even want to shrink it or destroy it. Then you have all the pork. Some senator from X state wants certain provisions that protect insurance companies in his state. Another senator wants to protect pharmaceutical manufacturers in his state. Some senator might want to create jobs in his state and demands a customer support call-center be created in his state. You get 100 different people all pulling in different directions. You can ignore about 40 of them in the senate, but ignoring them will often anger another 10 or so. It takes a huge amount of work and compromise so the bill that passes is some major compromise that satisfies nobody. The ACA (Obamacare) enshrined profits for insurance companies, but also did some things to get everyone onto an insurance plan (can't reject applicants for pre-existing conditions or cancel people's insurance when they get majorly sick). It took a ton of work and compromise to get that watered down bill, but it was still better than what existed previously. Then look at what happened early in Trump's term. The Republicans gained control and they said they'd "repeal and replace" the ACA. Repeal was relatively easy. All they needed to do was get enough people to vote to repeal the ACA. Can they get enough senators to vote against a monstrosity of a bill? They almost did. They also never even got close to the "replace" part because that part is difficult. Rather than voting to remove something they didn't like, they'd have to actually work together and create something they did want. That was never going to happen on the Republican side when it comes to Healthcare. But it is a great example of how easy it is to destroy something that was extremely difficult to build. I really appreciate the example given, but I'm looking into it now, just to understand the nuances of the inner workings of congress. Repeals have been not only unsuccessful, unless I'm missing somthing, but the effort to repeal has been substantial. 67 times voting to repeal, starting from 2010. All failed. | ||
|
RenSC2
United States1054 Posts
On September 01 2023 17:59 Uldridge wrote: I really appreciate the example given, but I'm looking into it now, just to understand the nuances of the inner workings of congress. Repeals have been not only unsuccessful, unless I'm missing somthing, but the effort to repeal has been substantial. 67 times voting to repeal, starting from 2010. All failed. Yes, in this case, the repeals have failed. The American system indeed makes any change hard as it requires both the house and the senate. I believe the repeal has passed the house multiple times, but never the senate. During the attempt that was closest to "success", John McCain had to turn his backs on the Republicans and vote against the repeal in order to save the ACA. If he had voted along with his fellow Republicans, the ACA would be repealed and healthcare would be back to where it was before. It's a lot easier to get a group of people to agree that something is bad than it is to get them to agree on what to do about it. That's why it's harder to pass a law than repeal it even though it takes the same number of votes either way. What you don't see is any proposal get even close to passing that would improve healthcare further than the ACA. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4729 Posts
People should grow up and give an equally big effort to address what goes wrong where and the actual solution, because people get voted in office while pointing fingers, not providing the answers. Would be nice to have someome come out with a dilligently crafted plan and go: "We'll do it so and so and it'll be great!" | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21613 Posts
On September 01 2023 18:22 Uldridge wrote: The problem is diligently crafted plans are generally complicated and people wants easily solution. They also often don't actually want things to change, despite change being needed to fix problems.Yes, pointing fingers is easy. Happens all the time in Belgium as well. Probably happens everywhere. People should grow up and give an equally big effort to address what goes wrong where and the actual solution, because people get voted in office while pointing fingers, not providing the answers. Would be nice to have someome come out with a dilligently crafted plan and go: "We'll do it so and so and it'll be great!" the person proposing re-training and business incentives to revitalize rural community loses to the person saying they will bring back the original jobs that once populated the region, despite them being complete obsolete. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4729 Posts
I'll let it rest. For now. But to answer: I agree with you. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On September 01 2023 17:59 Uldridge wrote: I really appreciate the example given, but I'm looking into it now, just to understand the nuances of the inner workings of congress. Repeals have been not only unsuccessful, unless I'm missing somthing, but the effort to repeal has been substantial. 67 times voting to repeal, starting from 2010. All failed. From 2010 until 2017 when Republicans took control of all three branches of government a ton of bills were created to repeal the ACA that everyone knew Obama wouldn't sign into law and were a complete waste of time. Republicans had a majority in the house and senate, but not enough to override a presidential veto so they knew every single ones of these bills would fail before it was even drafted. The intention of all of those bills was to make Obama and democrats look bad. It was never about repealing the ACA because they knew Obama would veto it before they started. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria3849 Posts
On September 01 2023 21:14 Blitzkrieg0 wrote: From 2010 until 2017 when Republicans took control of all three branches of government a ton of bills were created to repeal the ACA that everyone knew Obama wouldn't sign into law and were a complete waste of time. Republicans had a majority in the house and congress, but not enough to override a presidential veto so they knew every single ones of these bills would fail before it was even drafted. The intention of all of those bills was to make Obama and democrats look bad. It was never about repealing the ACA because they knew Obama would veto it before they started. I'm not sure if it makes sense to say that, just because Obama could always veto the bills, that means Republicans had no intention of ending the ACA. The purpose of continuously proposing a futile bill is to signal an intention. While they try and fail, at least they tried. If they don't even try, everyone will think they have their minds elsewhere. That would be likely to cost them votes. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On September 02 2023 00:20 Magic Powers wrote: I'm not sure if it makes sense to say that, just because Obama could always veto the bills, that means Republicans had no intention of ending the ACA. The purpose of continuously proposing a futile bill is to signal an intention. While they try and fail, at least they tried. If they don't even try, everyone will think they have their minds elsewhere. That would be likely to cost them votes. In principle I'd agree with you. In reality if your intention was to repeal the ACA and you couldn't do that because Obama vetoed it every time you would have passed it easily when Trump became president. We know that didn't happen and that infighting destroyed all the bills to repeal and replace. Republicans could have spent those six years working out all the gaps and had something on Trump's desk to sign but they didn't. | ||
|
oBlade
United States5500 Posts
On September 01 2023 08:21 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: While both sides need to consider who the VP is - since Biden and Trump are both old - the assertion that Trump will outlive Biden is unfounded. Experts have actually run the numbers and found that Biden is more likely to outlive Trump: "Biden is expected to outlive Trump, even though he is three years older. The reasons are that Biden has an exceptional health profile for a man his age (e.g., ideal Body Mass Index [BMI], physically active, few prescription medications, no identifiable lethal conditions, excellent cholesterol profile, low inflammation). He also has a family history of longevity. Trump also shares most of this profile, except his obesity and sedentary lifestyle work against his familial longevity history and his otherwise healthy biological profile." https://www.icaa.cc/media/presidential_lifespan_and_healthspan-draft_for_release_1.pdf So if you want to say you're concerned about both of them dying in office, I'd agree that that's valid. But don't overreach by saying Biden is more likely to die before Trump. Biden might die first, because anyone *could* die before Trump, but it's absolutely hypocritical when a Republican points out Biden's age and mortality. Thanks for linking source, I love to dissect experts to an audience. When they come on TV wearing a scarf around their neck (Elon fell for this absurd fashion thing too) to tell me doing the same will prevent the spread of a respiratory virus, no matter how much I yell back at the TV, nobody's listening. Firstly, my concern for Biden dying is that it's much more dangerous due to his flippant and reckless choice of a running mate. If his VP were Trump, for example, I wouldn't be as worried because his death wouldn't be such a disastrously high consequence event. Harris in the Oval Office wouldn't be a wonderful story like Veep or Designated Survivor. Disagree as I might with Pence, a collapse of order in the event of him assuming the presidency wasn't likely. I don't care who is going to die first per se as long as it's not in office. And of natural causes. For example, for the sake of argument Trump might have a higher risk of dying, but you have to subtract dying of assassination, because you can't maintain an argument where you shouldn't vote for someone for president because they might get assassinated and die in office, because something more ethical would be voting for whoever wins and just not assassinating them instead. Biden has fallen on the Air Force One steps and at the Air Force Academy graduation. Either the Air Force specifically hates him or something else is going on. He walks like a Diablo 1 zombie and isn't much better in the coherency department, either. These are visual things anyone can see plainly and can't be gaslit away. I am concerned foremost not with his mortality, but his health as it relates to basic fitness for office. He repeatedly shows issues speaking. We all seem to know other people are calling the shots. In your case, it's not a problem if he dies because Harris takes over and maybe the same people are calling the shots, so it's status quo MIC corporatist state forever. Maybe there's a logic to that, that they're equally puppets and so his poor choice of running mate given the risks of his age aren't relevant. But I prefer leaders to empty shells. Here's what's suspect with the paper's methods and your presentation of it if you're interested: 0) Just as a footnote you're taking a source whose conclusion is their age isn't an issue for either of them and using it to tell me Trump's going to die first. 1) This is from 3 years ago. You might say, oBlade, that's no time at all, but it's potentially like 20% of their life expectancy at the time. How about an updated analysis that factors in Biden falling down the stairs and Trump potentially losing 30 lbs (says Walter Reed measured him at 244lb). Also would like to see Trump's cholesterol and CAC levels now. 2) The Sullivan method appears to apply to populations to estimate useful life expectancy apart from the crippled years. Not to soothsay an individual's fortune. As a mathematician you can't keep falling for stuff like this. The main force influencing these favorable survival estimates is familial longevity. Socioeconomic factors contributing to this conclusion are that both have access to excellent health care, high income, they are highly educated, and both are married. appears to receive excellent medical care, practices some preventive health behaviors (e.g. takes a multivitamin, screening tests and immunizations appear up to date) and is married This is not causative at an individual level. You can't take an unmarried 80 year old and say bing bing bong, you're going to live 5 more years, and then say oh wait you're married, you have 8 more years, oh you went to university 60 years ago, you have 11 more years, but your other friend only has 5, just from looking at a population distribution. Trump has been married 3 times. His life expectancy going to increase 3x? Did the experts account for that, I wonder? ***3) The death curve flattens at the tail end of human age. That means if you make it far enough, after everyone drops like flies, there's not many flies left to drop so it looks like you're going to live longer. Here's an example from the paper illustrating (but the authors were either too stupid to notice or thought we would be): men in the U.S. that are Biden’s age have, on average, about 9 years of healthy life remaining while men in the U.S. that are Trump’s age have an average of 10.9 years of healthy life remaining. Note how before considering their morbidities and so forth, Trump has a lower life expectancy despite being younger. Before considering any further variables besides age and sex and race I think? Basic demographics. This is simply a statistical restatement of the fact that Biden is older than Trump. Because he's already lived 3-4 more years, he couldn't have died in that time. So if Trump was 74 (about) and he had 10.9 years, then he's dying at an average of 84.9, for example, and if Biden was 77 (about), and he had 9 years, then he's dying at an average of 86. The difference of their ages of 3 and the difference of their life expectancies (in this basic naive example) is 1.9. So the older guy is going to live 1.1 more years. This effect doesn't disappear. When you sit there smugly telling me actually Trump is going to die before Biden, and Republicans are hypocrites, all you're actually doing is repackaging the fact that a person can't die in the years they've lived since they were the age of a person younger than them because they already lived those years. Before, if we WAITED until Trump was 77 too, which he is now, we'd go oh look, Trump is 77, his life expectancy is 86! Such amazing insight of math! People who are young, have more chances to die before they're old, than people who are already old, who have 0 chances left to die before they're old because they're already old! 4) Paper doesn't know what it believes about diet Based on the available data, Trump has two major documented health issues, obesity and a level of physical activity defined as sedentary. There is suggestive evidence that his dietary and sleep habits are unfavorable, but in the absence of definitive evidence for both of these covariates, it is assumed here that these are non-issues. Remember, his dietary habits are unfavorable but that's a non-issue for our calculations. Also, what are unfavorable sleep habits? This is probably referencing Trump's own claim that he only sleeps like 4-6 hours a night. In my world if someone can chew bubble gum and kick ass for 18 hours a day without needing more sleep than that, he's probably in better shape than the fucking guy who takes naps and keeps falling asleep in public and has spent 40% of his term on vacation. But again, I'm not an expert. 5) Paper thinks a teetotaler might die because his brother died from alcoholism (I'd hate to see the non-experts!) However, family history is not destiny (two of his brothers have died younger than expected) and Trump’s poor lifestyle (unhealthy diet, lack of physical activity) may be catching up with him. So his dad lives to his 90s, his mom to her 80s, but one of his brothers barely made it past 70 and the other died of alcoholism which is the literal reason Trump never touches it. A comparable review of the medical information on Trump yielded a consensus that he too is in possession of a familial propensity for exceptional longevity, but this optimistic outlook based on family history alone is mitigated by the president’s main acquired risk factors—obesity, a poor diet, a lack of physical activity, and evidence of subclinical cardiovascular disease from his cardiac CT tests—and the fact that both of his brothers died at significantly younger ages than what would have been projected for them Hey, I thought diet was a non-issue. So Trump might have the Shatner genes that give you a super long period of energetic/livable years. But his brother was an alcoholic. From the standpoint of basic logic this is called irrelevant information to the point at hand. We should sleep sounder knowing Trump ISN'T going to die of alcoholism at the age of 43. Keep in mind that similar projections for exceptional longevity would have also been made for Trump’s two brothers, and neither survived even close to the observed longevity of their father. This is about the part of the doctors' paper where I was tempted to raze a medical school. Maybe Trump is at risk of premature death due to Dietcokeism. 6) Sedentary lifestyle? Sedentary Golf? 3 rallies a day? Where did this evaluation come from except gossip? Seems to be at odds with basic reality. I'm not saying Biden is inactive as far as he might go to the gym whereas Trump doesn't, but a lot of the negatives around the evaluation of Trump stem from this meme of "sedentary" which is not a tacit assumption I can let through. In whose judgment is he sedentary. Not all people on the high end of the BMI scale are necessarily couch potatoes. Seems again facially evident Trump is hardly sedentary. There's no further source or justification for this determination (or for his diet for that matter) so it's just going to be an agree to disagree matter. 7) Gambler's fallacy Trump currently exhibits no life limiting impairments although he is obese. This means he is at risk for severe illness if he were to contract Covid-19, and he is at risk for Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Trump not being impaired sounds like a good thing. They brush off Biden's issues with aneurysms saying it was 3 decades ago, so all gone, I mean that's great for him. But Trump did get Covid and I don't think he did experience severe illness. The paper plays it off that Biden had his problems before, so he's in the clear, and Trump is a ticking time bomb because he's never had any issues but admittedly CAC and cholesterol. He's obese by 0.1 BMI in that paper. 8) Evidence of absence requirement Trump has a family history of Alzheimer’s dementia on his father’s side (onset approximately age 87 years). Although this is considered common and late onset (over 40% of 85-year-olds have dementia), this still increases Trump’s risk for dementia versus the average male. Apparently, Trump scored 30/30—a common score on the MoCA. A score of 26/30 or higher is considered normal but does not completely rule out dementia So his father lived old enough to be so healthy that he ended up dying of Alzheimer's. There have been concerns about his cognitive function in the media and among many health professionals, such that 71 health professionals jointly wrote a letter to his personal physician urging detailed cognitive testing. Millions of us would like to test someone else, and we have more tangible evidence than family history. • Biden life expectancy estimate using a combined risk factor approach = 96.8 years (average is 87.4 years) I want to bet you or anyone else $1000 that he will die before then but I'm weighing the issue of having to wait even 16.7 years. | ||
| ||
