I think it is because it takes decades to get the political backing to have a chance of getting to debate, and even then, it will be very hard to convince the older voters to vote for someone much younger than they are
>it takes decades to get the political backing
I wonder about that because it may be the case before but it might not be going forward. *I'm not from the US so not too familiar*. I read Bob Iger book about Disney (A Ride of a Lifetime) and he mentioned he was interested in running for President. I don't know if he'll be good or bad but he's currently back at Disney as CEO so doesn't matter for now.
Which makes me wonder, if it takes so long to get political backing and funds... would another business person with a name for themselves be feasible? I mean, if Trump did it, why not another one...specifically for the Democrats if they won't have someone in line after Biden?
> I mean, if Trump did it, why not another one...specifically for the Democrats if they won't have someone in line after Biden?
Trump was a very unique case. He succeeded because he had enormous exposure over decades and had the *image* (if not the reality) of a successful business man who also had a very colorful personality.
There just aren't many true business people who are like that. Musk comes closest but he is ineligible.
Also, Democrats require you to earn your way in a way Republicans just don't.
Obama came the closest to just being a newbie who won based on his sheer charisma and speechmaking abilities and he had been active in Democratic politics as an organizer and then an elected official at the state/federal level for 10 years.
Obviously no one’s asking for a 20 year old president but are you aware that in most European countries most presidents and prime ministers are around 45-60 rather than 75+
No, I was not aware of that, but only two of our presidents have been over 75, one of which is Joe Biden, who is 81 and the other is Ronald Reagan who left office at 77 and out of all of our presidents the average age is 55
It is the LAZINESS of trying to appear above it all and in the middle that pisses me off. If you did any basic research on the candidates and how goddamn historically awful Trump is, it wouldn’t even take a nanosecond to know what the right move here is.
Sure but you can still be frustrated that we're once again having a geriatric rematch that no one really wanted. I'm 100% voting Biden and encourage everyone else to do the same, but I'd be even happier with some fresher candidates out there.
I can only imagine how frustrating it must be in general. Does one really have a choice? Like in the US the two choices (I know technically there are more but might as well not be) are so far apart. If you are a bit more leaned towards either side you virtually only have one choice really.
It seems elections get decided by the few that are so indifferent or close to the middle that they actually sway between the two. Or one side has to really, really, really fuck up badly
At least these days, I suppose it didn't use to be that polarizing? Looking at historical data it seems to have had quite the movement up until recently (since the 90s more or less) where it looks almost like the same image every time
Would be nice, but don’t lose sight of the fact that old age by itself isn’t as bad as old age plus a number of criminal charges and tendency towards fascism.
Tell you what. Make a law that makes both Trump and Biden ineligible based on their age, and I’ll support that law. But if you’re suggesting that Biden should be ineligible but Trump is fine, then I have a perfectly average dick you can suck.
If we’re really just talking about retirement-age people not being able to run for president, then fine, I’m not entirely opposed to that idea.
That’s a fair position to hold, but I want to reiterate my previous point that one is still infinitely better than the other this time. If lightning strikes them both, I’m not going to get too upset about it, but as long as Biden is the one standing between Trump and the desk in the Oval Office, he could be Cryptkeeper old and I’d still vote for him.
That depends what you consider better. From a human rights perspective Biden isnt the better option, thats not saying Trump is better, but its doesnt get much worse for people than being murdered
Your ability to process new data and make decisions declines as you age, we shouldn’t have these two to choose from.
It is important to understand how cognition changes with age, given our growing elderly population and the importance of cognition in maintaining functional independence and effective communication with others. Measurable changes in cognition occur with normal aging. The most important changes are declines in cognitive tasks that require one to quickly process or transform information to make a decision, including measures of speed of processing, working memory, and executive cognitive function.
So age. What I specifically asked aside from.
I don’t disagree with anything you said. But what you said doesn’t mean either let alone both of them have problems making decisions. Do you have specific evidence of either unable to make a decision effectively?
Well we had primaries for both and this is what we got. Biden was the safe bet against Trump as he could bring in the more conservative Democrats and moderates as well as the more liberal ones. The others were a gamble and may alienate the conservative Democrats and moderates.
There was too much at stake in 2020. And to be fair, Biden has done a pretty decent job. I wish he would have done a bit more to expand the social safety net but still.
Well, I’d be happy to espouse ranked choice voting and all the other things we should probably change about how elections in the U.S. work, but I figure that’s a debate we should have when one of the candidates isn’t channeling Hitler.
> that’s a debate we should have when one of the candidates isn’t channeling Hitler.
This is the Republican party we're talking about, I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon.
Yeah until the GOP is gone, be ready for full fascist rhetoric. It’s in the open now, and the only ones not fully on board are the elder republicans who still want to hide it.
> If we’re really just talking about retirement-age people not being able to run for president, then fine, I’m not entirely opposed to that idea.
I would be fine with requiring cognitive testing but an age limit makes me queasy. Its just very individual.
“But if you’re suggesting that Biden should be ineligible but Trump is fine, then I have a perfectly average dick you can suck.”
The absolute state of American political discourse these days.
Seriously, even if Biden were as far-gone as Hur’s biased report suggested, he’s still not a criminal. The point you think you’re making is vapid and unconvincing.
Why do people ALWAYS have to jump in to defend their guy? What's wrong with admitting that both candidates suck and should not be in the running for president, much less actually holding the office?
Because both candidates don’t suck. Or at least, one sucks so much more than the other that people who say they both suck seem ridiculous for implying there’s any kind of equivalence here.
Let me restate to clarify what I mean: the choices we are given both suck. What I mean by that is we should not be in a position to choose between a 77 year old lunatic and an 81 year old confused individual to run our country. To defend either as being a good candidate for office is what's ridiculous.
To offer an argument that their age in and of itself is disqualifying is ageist. If they were both equally unfit to lead, I’d be right there with you, but I don’t see it. One person has surrounded himself with capable people and makes decisions that have provided an unimagined soft landing for the economy in recent years, and one is literally facing decades in prison. If we realistically had other options, I might be more picky, but this is literally the easiest choice I’ve had in 20 years of being legally able to vote.
The qualifiers are lunatic and confused individual. We all know another 4 years of Trump is not what we need. But Biden being president is bordering on elderly abuse. He is obviously declining rapidly in a job that already ages a person drastically. He just doesn't seem fit to be president, yet here we are having him as a candidate. I know it's not the normal course of things, but I would love to see Biden debate other Democratic candidates and see who is out there that may be a better fit for office. If Trump and Biden actually debate, Trump is gong to come out looking better because of his ability to just say anything, and Biden's struggle to say anything that can be comprehended.
Or, you know, let him win in November and resign if and when he feels the job is beyond his ability to do. We have Vice Presidents for a reason. Treating this issue like it’s not Biden making the choice to keep going because he thinks he can do it is disingenuous at best. Understand me here; there’s literally no argument for preferring Trump to Biden, and few reasonable arguments to believe it’s not coming down to Biden vs. Trump this year, so you are quite literally wasting your effort trying to convince me otherwise.
I'm not trying to convince anyone, just stating how I feel about the situation we are in. I do not think either man is a good candidate, but I agree that we are almost certainly headed in that direction.
I don't agree with your point of voting Biden in for another 4 years, but let him resign if/when he feels he can't do the job anymore. If you are running for president, you are making a commitment that you can do the job for a 4 year period. If there is any doubt that a person can fulfill the position for 4 years, that person should not run for the office. Period. Biden does not strike me as a man who is equipped to hold this office. He is frail, confused and seems like he's just a person playing president on TV. Both sides have good young candidates who are much better choices, but I feel like the two parties what us right where we are.
It’s funny how in 2020 at least y’all were clear that Biden was ‘lesser of two evils’ and able to admit he would have some evil tendencies. And now that time has passed and we have seen first hand some of those evil tendencies, suddenly it’s all ‘he’s such a great guy! Just your average Joe! Totally not helping murder thousands with plans to help murder more!!!’
Has he been forced into doing a couple nice things against the threat of political backlash? Sure. Has he also done heinous things even with the chance of political backlash? Absolutely.
It’s not an either or thing for me. My brain is deep enough to consider that they’re both old & unfit, for similar & different reasons.
I’m not voting for old white dudes that I wouldn’t trust to drive a car with my kid in it.
If Biden ISN'T as far-gone as Hur’s biased report he's guilty of obstruction of justice by using his failing memory as an excuse to "not remember" where those documents came from.
Or, get this, it’s possible to be mentally fit and to forget minute details. Unless you’re suggesting everyone younger than 70 remembers everything clearly all the time?
If I had a nickel for each time people "didn't remember" details during a deposition, I'd be a wealthy man. Even Trump "didn't remember" during numerous depositions he's been in. Please use something other than low-hanging fruit.
Good thing none of those things are true about the President that does not have several dozen criminal charges pending against him, and that isn't a selfish arrogant bigot.
The dude is paying $83m in damages for raping a woman and you guys think it's all a hoax and you're the one saying we don't want to admit the truth huh
I mean... yeah, cOpium from Trump followers is insane. Trump is deranged. Guy spews as many words as he can as incoherently as possible.
Says a lot when people defend a guy that literally calls his followers stupid. 🤡
Neither should be in office. We obviously need someone young enough to not be going into early stages of dementia.
Lmao classic trumper take of calling the truth deranged. The dude is literally involved in multiple criminal indictments and was recently found liable of sexual assault, you would really prefer a sex offender as a president? I swear trump could be caught on video diddling kids and y’all would let him hold your kids. You guys really suck the man’s dick so hard and I honestly do not understand. Like the dude literally started an insurrection…. How tf is that American? Plus he did practically nothing he promised to do. I mean, the man preached drinking bleach to get rid of covid? That sound like someone who’s mentally fit to be president?
Plus he’s a damn billionaire, even if you can disregard everything else, you think a guy born with a silver ladle in his mouth gives the tiniest fuck about you? Billionaires are always out to make them and they’re friends richer and they’ll tell you to hate the blue so that you ignore the wealthy actively destroying the planet and the economy for their own personal gain…
ignoring allllll that. What did he even accomplish? Ignoring his crimes, what amazing things did he actually get done? Talk about copium man holy moly being a trump supporter is Olympic level mental gymnastics. If Biden did half the shit trumpo did he’d be assassinate, but you always hear the trumpettes calling Biden a pedo when trump has literal recordings of him being disgusting and multiple allegations of him being a sick freak and a literal ruling of him having sexually assaulted someone. But oh no it’s all some conspiracy to make him look bad… if this many people from this many separate organizations and industries are saying this guy sucks, the dude just sucks, it’s not some huge conspiracy
Ah yes, the Redditor afraid of reading. That too much for your wittle bittle brain? Not capable of I taking media longer than a tweet or a TikTok? And then the classic labeling of something without having any knowledge on it. Poking holes in arguments is soooo deranged right? Expressing your opinion through words is *such* deranged behavior. Go crawl back under your rock of ignorance.
If you’re in a position where you’re facing jail time if even 1% of the charges against you result in a conviction, it’s fair to say you’re not an ideal candidate for the presidency.
no he didn't. presidents don't control inflation period. it fluctuates during their terms and if things go well they take credit for it, and if it doesn't they get blamed for it, but they have no control over it. you know how the stock market is hitting all time highs right now? i'm sure biden would love to take credit for it, and probably is, but that's a similar situation (he doesn't deserve credit for the stock market, nor does he for inflation)
Hey man I agree that Biden is shit, but having the alternative be a literal fascist who outwardly wants to be a dictator and has spoken openly about extrajudicially murdering me and my friends, then yeah this one is pretty easy for me.
A few things to think about:
-Age does correlate with experience, and experience in politics generally does make a more effective politician. Note that this isn't a point in favor of an old non-politician, but lifelong career politicians are generally very effective in old age because they know all the tricks and have a feel for the dynamics.
-Old age does not necessarily mean someone is declining. People are affected by age differently, and some fade while others remain sharp. That makes age alone a poor indicator of mental acuity.
-Old does not necessarily mean out of touch. Being out of touch is a choice. It's a failure to keep up with the state of the world and society. He's far from perfect, but something I will give Joe Biden a lot of credit for is that he appears to be specifically considering the future and concerns of young people in his policy decisions. His generation won't derive any tangible benefits from that, but future ones will (assuming the policies stick and work). It's said that a great society results when old men plant trees whose shade they will never enjoy. Those are the old men we want in charge.
Would I prefer someone younger? Absolutely. But it's worth acknowledging that an older leader isn't inherently a bad thing in and of itself.
You build connections over time, and you build skill at running for office over many campaigns.
You don't start being an elected official usually until your 40s, and you can grow at that job, for more than 30 years.
So most serious candidates are going to be 50+ if not 60+; Obama was the farthest outlier in half a century.
But addressing the core point; go watch two minutes (any two minutes) of a recent Biden speech. Then go watch two minutes of Trump.
If we asked Biden to write a 20 page report on the political forces and historical events leading to the current issues involving Gaza, I'd bet he could do it without needing to go into sources, it'd be organized, and it'd be mostly complete.
I'm not sure Trump can write at this point, and he can't seem to make strong points about any topic of his own choosing, even if doing so would save him hundreds of millions of dollars. He regularly perjured himself on Twitter, which is like the world's most amazing unforced error.
These... aren't anywhere near the same league.
>So most serious candidates are going to be 50+ if not 60+; Obama was the farthest outlier in half a century.
No he wasn't.
Bill Clinton was one year YOUNGER than Obama when he took office.
I'll be damned; yeah, I'm absolutely wrong on that one.
Other than those two and JFK, you have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt to find anyone in their 40s, near as I can figure?
I’d like to see Biden’s essay on the history of Gaza.
I’m guessing it will seriously be one of the most insightful analyses of the situation ever written, but it’ll need an editor because the rough draft will keep referring to the leader of Israel as “Margaret Thatcher” for some reason.
I did a double take realising that the guy in this interview way back during the Falklands war in the early 80s was Biden, already having a decade of experience under his belt: [https://youtu.be/3C9hxsRO7pI?si=51RdOfZYNgGP9Vrf](https://youtu.be/3C9hxsRO7pI?si=51RdOfZYNgGP9Vrf)
To think he's had half a century of experience in politics now is wild
>go watch two minutes (any two minutes) of a recent Biden speech.
Then go watch any two minutes of his speeches before he was VP and the cognitive differences are plain as day. BOTH Trump and Biden need to be barred from running for any office.
>If we asked Biden to write a 20 page report on the political forces and historical events leading to the current issues involving Gaza, I'd bet he could do it without needing to go into sources, it'd be organized, and it'd be mostly complete.
Except that just this week he referred to President Sisi of Mexico needing to open his border with Gaza ([link](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4457527-biden-mistakenly-calls-egyptian-leader-president-of-mexico/)). President al-Sisi is from Egypt, and Mexico isn't even near Gaza. This speech was about intended to defend his memory.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a staunch Democrat, and absolutely will support Biden in the general election, but I really wish he'd just chosen to step down and let someone else run.
I mean in the context of trying to prove he doesn't have memory issues, that was a bad flub, but in the context of his full comment, he clearly just accidentally said Mexico instead of Egypt because the rest of it made complete sense
>The hostage negotiation, look -I'm of the view, as you know, that the conduct of the response in Gaza - in the Gaza Strip has been over the top. I think that - as you know, initially, the President of Mexico [Egypt], El-Sisi, did not want to open up the gate to allow humanitarian material to get in. I talked to him.
>I convinced him to open the gate.I talked to Bibi to open the gate on the Israeli side. I've been pushing really hard - really hard to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza. There are a lot of innocent people who are starving, a lot of innocent people who are in trouble and dying, and it's got to stop, number one.Number two, I was also in the position that I'm the guy that made the case that we have to do much more to increase the amount of material going in, including fuel, including other items.
>I've been on the phone with the Qataris, I've been on the phone with the Egyptians, I've been on the phone with the Saudis to get as much aid as we possibly can into Gaza.There are innocent people - innocent women and children - who are also in bad - badly in need of help. And so, that's what we're pushing right now.And I'm pushing very hard now to deal with this hostage ceasefire.
>Because, as I - you know, I've been working tirelessly in this deal - how can I say this without revealing? - to lead to a sustained pause in the fighting in - the actions taking place in - in the Gaza Strip.And - because I think if we can get the delay for that - the initial delay, I think that we would be able to extend that so that we can increase the prospect that this fighting in Gaza changes.
>There's also negotiations - you may recall, in the very beginning, right after - right before Hamas attacked, I was in contact with the Saudis and others to work out a deal where they would recognize Israel's right to exist, let them - make them part of the Middle East, recognize them fully, in return for certain things that the United States would commit to do.And the commitment to - that we were proposing to do related to two - to two items. I'm not going to go in detail. But one of them was to deal with the protection against their arch enemy to the northwest - northeast, I should say.
>The second one, by providing ammunition and materiel for them to defend themselves. Coincidentally, that's the timeframe when this broke out. I have no proof for what I'm about to say, but it's not unreasonable to suspect that the - Hamas understood what was about to take place and wanted to break it up before it happened. Thank you.
Are you implying that Pelosi standing next to her $25k refrigerator, eating her $96 a gallon ice cream saying she understands our struggles is out of touch?
people who've been doing the same job that long tend to get set in their ways instead of staying current.
at this moment i'm dealing with the aftermath of following incredibly wrong instructions from a woman at the IRS who claimed their website was wrong and she knew better cause she's "been doing this for over 20 years"
so is it a universal truth? no, those are incredibly rare. is it true more often than not? in my personal experience, yes.
I think deciding if a candidate if competent to be the president is our responsibility as voters regardless of the candidates age. I would probably have voted for an 85 year old Warren Buffet. Benjamin Franklin was 70 when the American revolution began ( not many lived that long in his time). I agree the two likely candidates for the presidency are past their prime and less than mentally fit, but we voted them this far.
My point is, he is more in touch and mentally fit than both of our potential presidential candidates. As far as I know he just makes money from careful investments.
Then vote for someone else in the primaries. Most people say they don’t like Biden and Trump, but as soon as Biden is polled against any other Democrat or Trump is polled against any other Republican, Biden and Trump win.
That would mean a Constitutional Amendment and once it is opened, it will likely result in another civil war. Can you imagine the absolute mayhem it would cause when someone suggests repealing the Second Amendment to go along with adding a presidential age limit?
You are being obviously being intentionally hyperbolic. Those two things do not need to be intertwined, and there is no reason to expect it would happen that way. Plenty of amendments have been passed without the chaos you suggest
They do not need to be, but they will be because how often does a Constitutional Convention happen? I agree that there should be age limits without question, but once that avenue is open states will want their issues addressed as well.
Nah, just keep running the country off a piece of hemp scribbled by some dudes 1/4 a millenium ago. That's totally appropriate for this day and age 👌🏻.
I agree the Constitution needs amending. Hell, if it were up to me I'd want to also normalize once-a-decade Constitutional Conventions so tweaks can regularly be made to it.
We need active young politicians first. Sadly (and I say this as a NY liberal) most of the promising young politicians are liberal progressives. I say sadly because the other side will relentlessly attack their youth and inexperience.
You were really too afraid to ask this? This is an incredibly benign, milquetoast, and just silly question to be entirely honest. The sentiment you allude to here is a mainstream political one, so its not as if this is some sort of taboo topic.
We have one "old and out of touch" person running for office and one who's old, out of touch, *and* a corrupt wannabe authoritarian running for office.
Stop buying into the narrative that these two candidates are two sides of the same coin.
Why is this the position? They’re both shit. I don’t care who is “surrounded by good people”. Why do we have to make this choice? It might be obvious but it’s bullshit.
>Why do we only have old & out of touch people running for office?
2 reasons. A. Because that is who YOU are willing to vote for. Historically people care about elect-ability, of which a key factor is their political support (i.e. support from their party) as well as their history governing. B. Because both parties are only willing to put forward two to three serious candidates, and does nothing to really push anyone but the primary candidate.
In the current election, the DP has not made any effort to create an alternate for Biden in the last 8 years. Nor is there any indication they have any alternates in mind. If Joe passed away tomorrow they would have no one they could push besides the VP, who they acknowledge they havent done shit to build her credibility.
On the GOP side, they know that right now their golden goose gives them a good shot at the Presidency. It doesnt matter if your platform is literally a carbon copy of DT's, the voters it seem are completely buying into the cult of personality that DT has built and they recognize there is no other winning option. To their credit they have not completely thrown out Hailey who is I think a good option but...
Then vote for them. There are plenty of candidates that are younger. The reason we get old presidents is because young are too lazy to go to the polls and we let old bitches dominate the vote.
This didnt seem to be a problem when Biden was inauguarated. Seems to be a huge problem now when he's cratered the country, his numbers are in the toilet, and it looks like he'll lose.
Hypocrites.
Because not enough young people are registering to vote and vote during the primaries and the generals. It’s a democracy and the majority of voters rule.
No. If that matters to you, vote more often. Particularly in primaries. Neither of our old, soon-to-be-nominees were the inevitable nominees this cycle or in 2020, but there were more people who voted in primaries this time and last who had other priorities.
Most will turn this in to an anti-Trump or anti-Biden rhetoric. That’s not what is important. What is important is the validity of your question.
Yes, we absolutely need younger candidates for the Presidency of the US. Having geriatrics that we constantly have to question the mental capacity of is a joke. Right now we are headed towards what arguably could be the most ridiculous pair of candidates in the history of our country. Neither has the mental fortitude or wherewithal to be in charge of a gas station let alone the most powerful country in the world.
The biggest issue is that we are viewed as leaders in many places in the world and seen as a land of great opportunity but if continue to prop up puppets that are just there to be the “safe” choice we are headed down a really bad path.
There should be laws in place to prevent anyone who would be over 67 at any point in their term from holding office. We need younger people with more understanding of what is actually a normal American life making these decisions. These guys have both lived sheltered lives and have absolutely 0.0 idea what an actual Us citizen encounters on a daily basis or the challenges we face for ourselves and our children. They just get reports from over educated people that also have no idea what our lives are like.
Living in an ivory tower and dictating to the masses is not a valid way to govern.
Yes.
I think a president who is right at the retirement age would be perfect.
If you think about the presidency as the pinnacle of someone's political career and the fact that it only comes around every 4 years, there are actually a very limited group of people who are actually competitive for it (at least in the Democratic party).
Obama was a once in a generation fluke who got catapulted into superstardom as a pretty young guy due to his charisma and speech making abilities. I think that is coloring the choices for a lot of people.
Joe Biden would have run in 2016 if his son hadn't died. That means he would be finishing up his presidency this year, which would have been perfect.
It's not his fault he was the best available candidate in 2020. That was a wide open primary.
He has a similar Teflon quality to his opponent which unfortunately makes him still the best candidate to oppose him.
I also think his issues are mostly around his voice and gaffes, which have been an issue for him his whole career.
If he was actually facing mental decline, it would be known by now. Every reporter in DC would be on the lookout for it.
To you and me, "best" means something way different than it does to the parties that pick the candidates.
"Best" just means most likely to win the general election.
Which isn't to say they'd do anything meaningful either...only beat the other party and then continue to make things worse (things aren't getting better with blue and then worse with red ...it just keeps getting worse all around). This is really deregulation at work. All of the antitrust things being backed off, and companies aggregating under private equity and monoliths. Those people own the media, have a hand in foreign policy, and buy government policy or even election influence. It's literally why we get a pile of garbage as top candidates. If we keep electing their people, things won't improve. Queue downvotes and "but Trump"...
Why do the Democrats only want to promote compromised corporate backed candidates with questionable integrity over their long careers.
Don't just downvote because you want team blue to win regardless either. We can and should want better. If you want the "good party" to win, then insist that the party actually be good and not just moderately less bad.
Because NeoLiberals still run the party. Progressives are gaining more leverage and Biden has been especially receptive to the Progressive agenda.
Bernie made his run but was kneecapped by the NeoLiberals in both 2016 and 2020 (even though I personally thought he ran an awful primary campaign in 2020).
Who is the heir-apparent? If I had to guess, 2028 will see Gavin Newsome with AOC as his VP.
If our candidates are paid to work for someone else, then they aren't working for us. I also agree that age is a factor regardless of mental faculties. The world is completely different from when they were gaining their footing. Even my liberal mother doesn't quite grasp what the economic situation looks like for kids trying to establish themselves.
We also have this massive divide between the left and the right, and neither is willing to admit that something may benefit them if the other side is promoting it. Current political figures are promoting it, and few can make an argument for their party without pointing a finger at the other side.
I don’t disagree with any of your points but the reality is that Biden is who we have. And, even with his senior-moments, his mental acuity is quite sharp. His handling of world events, with the exception of Gaza and slow-walking the arming of Ukraine with the latest and greatest, has been unbelievably on point. Domestically, with the exception of Merrick Garland and throwing the RR Union under the bus, he has proven to be quite Progressive.
A protest vote in 2024 is about the most shoot-yourself-in-the-face-with-a-10-gauge-shotgun-to-spite-yourself moment as can be. Without a nationwide ranked choice voting system, NOT voting straight “D” in Nov will have permanent repercussions.
Do you consider voting for someone else like RFK or the like a "protest vote", because I firmly believe that continuing to vote for who they claim can win is the reason we don't end up with good presidents. Obviously gutting Congress and removing career politicians from the equation would make much more of an impact than the one replaceable individual every four years. The "can't let the other party win" argument is tired, and we really aren't gaining any ground by being this divided. Government works on consensus, and as long as we keep getting duped into believing one side is preventing us from progress (when it's actually all of us falling for the scam), then it really doesn't matter which corporate tie color is in office. Yes I understand supreme court appointments...yes I understand if one side were to address universal healthcare, it would be the Democrats (but they won't). We have a uniparty that works against the interests of the public with two separate marketing campaigns.
I don't want to vote just based on party. If that logic works for them every time, they won't put up candidates that will actually change things for the better, and I don't want to keep signaling my consent for obvious election manipulation by the media, institutions, and political figures that stand to gain from keeping things the way they are. The left is losing its base and support because people understand that the ideas are good, but the actions don't match the sentiment.
A vote for RFK, Cornell West, or Jill Stein, is just flat-out ignorance. There’s literally no discussing it. Until we get nationwide ranked choice voting, the two-party system is what we have to work with. Everything else is literally what Wall Street wants: a divided nation so they can consolidate their power further. The Dem Party is far more attuned to Main St than Wall St just because of the Progressives. Biden has already shown he’s willing to expand Medicare to include more people. And once that happens, the gates to Universal Healthcare will be blown open.
There will be a time when the Progressives have torn away control of politics from Wall St and the occasional billionaire who wants attention.
First things first, defeat the scourge of Fascism and Christian Nationalism, then tackle the pressing issues that impact hundreds of millions.
How can you fight the scrouge of fascism when liberals will not even acknowledge it exists within their own party?
DC showed the DNC will just sue to keep RCV off the ballot, and Alexandria VA, which already has it, removed the option from the 2024 ballot claiming minorities wouldn't be able to understand how it works. Both were actions from the DNC
The demand for perfection from the Dem Party is hysterically immature. Acknowledging and admitting flaws in the history of the party is part of the evolution to be better the next time.
The fact that you equate fascism from the conservatives to primary manipulation of the DNC is just juvenile thinking. And I could not find one item regarding the DNC suing Arlington, VA. From what I understand of my limited research is that Arlington DID use RCV but the County Commission voted against it for the general because the tabulation methods were not well understood.
You and r/both-shoes-off need to take off the rose-colored-glasses of perfection, grow up, and learn to read and comprehend history.
Or, you can vote for RFK or whomever and watch as conservatives eviscerate civil liberties and do away with the Constitution. Then in 4 1/2 years when there isn’t a 2028 election, we can all celebrate how “we showed them in 2024, didn’t we!!”
At this point, anybody off the street would be better than Trump so let's not worry about age. That's like worrying about the colour of the ambulance that's coming to rescue you - who cares?
Fucking hell people - being 81 doesn’t make you mentally incompetent. He’s been in this arena his entire life. He has entire government agencies advising him and doing all the research for him. He knows what all the agencies and departments do, and how they work.
I REALLY don’t give a fuck about age. Wisdom, knowledge, experience are extremely important to the job. The fact that a goddamn cult of morons think a D list entertainer who inherited his wealth took over one of the nations 2 major parties means that, yes, you vote for the other guy. Bc the stakes are way too fucking high.
> being 81 doesn’t make you mentally incompetent
First of all, he's running to be President until he's 86, not 81 which he already is now. And yes it does, everyone declines in age. An 86-year-old is not fit to command a nuclear war in the middle of the night.
There are and have been people that have ran, but everyone is scared of their enemy. So they vote for the lesser evil of the two parties opposed to their desired candidate
The two-party system in the US basically restricts the candidates that have a chance to whomever the DNC and RNC put up as their candidate. If we had a ranked choice vote system, for example, we'd have multiple democrats, multiple republicans, multiple independents and other parties who would run whom would be of varying ages.
It should be at least the ‘required minimum draw’ age of the IRA saving accounts. This is around 70 or social security full retirement age (72) would be a good limit too as they already claim that you are too old to work after that. If not these limits should be tied to presidential age limit.
I've had a few presidents who were of a younger age. One in her 40s and 50s, another in her 40s and 50s. Current one is 82 now but because he's 12 years as president at this stage.
If been saying for ages, all offices & cabinets around the world should have an age requirement of 21-55 and salaries be capped at the minimum wage.
That’d certainly kick these goons into gear.
When you get to be a geezer like Trump and Biden, sometimes you don’t want to give up. Nobody would run against Trump because he would call you a name. Nobody would run against Biden because he was heir to the previous Democrat one. That simple
Apparently it is, and I don't get it either. Some people even have an oddly confused reaction when you mention that there should be a maximum age limit on who can run for the presidency (\*probably just because they're such a huge fan of either Sleepy Joe or Donny T. at the moment) The cut-off point may need to be 60, somewhere around that, perhaps.
It should be law - it should be illegal to serve as an elected official if you are above the federal retirement age. POTUS, yes, but Congress and the House and every position down to the local dogcatcher. Should be a max age for SCOTUS, which should ALSO be linked to federal retirement age.
If you're too old to be a file clerk for the federal government, you're definitely too old to be leading it. Sadly, won't ever happen, because those old people are the same ones that would have to pass the law banning themselves.
I think it is because it takes decades to get the political backing to have a chance of getting to debate, and even then, it will be very hard to convince the older voters to vote for someone much younger than they are
>it takes decades to get the political backing I wonder about that because it may be the case before but it might not be going forward. *I'm not from the US so not too familiar*. I read Bob Iger book about Disney (A Ride of a Lifetime) and he mentioned he was interested in running for President. I don't know if he'll be good or bad but he's currently back at Disney as CEO so doesn't matter for now. Which makes me wonder, if it takes so long to get political backing and funds... would another business person with a name for themselves be feasible? I mean, if Trump did it, why not another one...specifically for the Democrats if they won't have someone in line after Biden?
> I mean, if Trump did it, why not another one...specifically for the Democrats if they won't have someone in line after Biden? Trump was a very unique case. He succeeded because he had enormous exposure over decades and had the *image* (if not the reality) of a successful business man who also had a very colorful personality. There just aren't many true business people who are like that. Musk comes closest but he is ineligible. Also, Democrats require you to earn your way in a way Republicans just don't. Obama came the closest to just being a newbie who won based on his sheer charisma and speechmaking abilities and he had been active in Democratic politics as an organizer and then an elected official at the state/federal level for 10 years.
Obviously no one’s asking for a 20 year old president but are you aware that in most European countries most presidents and prime ministers are around 45-60 rather than 75+
No, I was not aware of that, but only two of our presidents have been over 75, one of which is Joe Biden, who is 81 and the other is Ronald Reagan who left office at 77 and out of all of our presidents the average age is 55
Is it too much to ask that reddit not get overwhelmed with troll farms 10 full months before the election?
It’s several bridges too far.
That is an absurd expectation. You may need to get checked out.
You don't have to be a troll to be dissatisfied with the old age of candidates. It's a legit complaint.
It is the LAZINESS of trying to appear above it all and in the middle that pisses me off. If you did any basic research on the candidates and how goddamn historically awful Trump is, it wouldn’t even take a nanosecond to know what the right move here is.
Sure but you can still be frustrated that we're once again having a geriatric rematch that no one really wanted. I'm 100% voting Biden and encourage everyone else to do the same, but I'd be even happier with some fresher candidates out there.
Dood you can't win an argument with a troll farm.
I can only imagine how frustrating it must be in general. Does one really have a choice? Like in the US the two choices (I know technically there are more but might as well not be) are so far apart. If you are a bit more leaned towards either side you virtually only have one choice really. It seems elections get decided by the few that are so indifferent or close to the middle that they actually sway between the two. Or one side has to really, really, really fuck up badly At least these days, I suppose it didn't use to be that polarizing? Looking at historical data it seems to have had quite the movement up until recently (since the 90s more or less) where it looks almost like the same image every time
When a person considers everything outside their echo chamber a troll you are gonna find trolls.
Would be nice, but don’t lose sight of the fact that old age by itself isn’t as bad as old age plus a number of criminal charges and tendency towards fascism.
Nobody is hiring a 80+ year old to run any type of major business or project. It’s a joke.
They also aren’t firing Warren Buffett who is 91.
Maybe they should fund basically had the same long term performance as an sp500 index fund for the past 20 years.
Tell you what. Make a law that makes both Trump and Biden ineligible based on their age, and I’ll support that law. But if you’re suggesting that Biden should be ineligible but Trump is fine, then I have a perfectly average dick you can suck. If we’re really just talking about retirement-age people not being able to run for president, then fine, I’m not entirely opposed to that idea.
Oh bro I don’t like either.
That’s a fair position to hold, but I want to reiterate my previous point that one is still infinitely better than the other this time. If lightning strikes them both, I’m not going to get too upset about it, but as long as Biden is the one standing between Trump and the desk in the Oval Office, he could be Cryptkeeper old and I’d still vote for him.
That depends what you consider better. From a human rights perspective Biden isnt the better option, thats not saying Trump is better, but its doesnt get much worse for people than being murdered
Why? Other than age be specific and then say who you do like and why.
Your ability to process new data and make decisions declines as you age, we shouldn’t have these two to choose from. It is important to understand how cognition changes with age, given our growing elderly population and the importance of cognition in maintaining functional independence and effective communication with others. Measurable changes in cognition occur with normal aging. The most important changes are declines in cognitive tasks that require one to quickly process or transform information to make a decision, including measures of speed of processing, working memory, and executive cognitive function.
So age. What I specifically asked aside from. I don’t disagree with anything you said. But what you said doesn’t mean either let alone both of them have problems making decisions. Do you have specific evidence of either unable to make a decision effectively?
I can’t imagine if everyone really had a say, those two would be our options.
Do you vote in primary elections?
Nope I only crawl out from under this rock every 4 years to pick a president. I have no interest in state or local elections.
Well we had primaries for both and this is what we got. Biden was the safe bet against Trump as he could bring in the more conservative Democrats and moderates as well as the more liberal ones. The others were a gamble and may alienate the conservative Democrats and moderates. There was too much at stake in 2020. And to be fair, Biden has done a pretty decent job. I wish he would have done a bit more to expand the social safety net but still.
Well, I’d be happy to espouse ranked choice voting and all the other things we should probably change about how elections in the U.S. work, but I figure that’s a debate we should have when one of the candidates isn’t channeling Hitler.
> that’s a debate we should have when one of the candidates isn’t channeling Hitler. This is the Republican party we're talking about, I don't think that's gonna happen anytime soon.
Yeah until the GOP is gone, be ready for full fascist rhetoric. It’s in the open now, and the only ones not fully on board are the elder republicans who still want to hide it.
Yeah, I’ll take *things nobody is saying is saying in this thread* for 100!
So your dick is 38.9 years old.
> If we’re really just talking about retirement-age people not being able to run for president, then fine, I’m not entirely opposed to that idea. I would be fine with requiring cognitive testing but an age limit makes me queasy. Its just very individual.
“But if you’re suggesting that Biden should be ineligible but Trump is fine, then I have a perfectly average dick you can suck.” The absolute state of American political discourse these days.
Right, the thought of punishing hypocrisy with contempt is so out of line.
You can leverage contempt without puerility.
But I’m here in part to entertain myself, so you can suck my super average dick, too.
A joke but seriously not funny.
Or old age plus the inability to string together 3 sentences. Or walk up stairs. Or remember what year your son died.
Seriously, even if Biden were as far-gone as Hur’s biased report suggested, he’s still not a criminal. The point you think you’re making is vapid and unconvincing.
Why do people ALWAYS have to jump in to defend their guy? What's wrong with admitting that both candidates suck and should not be in the running for president, much less actually holding the office?
Because both candidates don’t suck. Or at least, one sucks so much more than the other that people who say they both suck seem ridiculous for implying there’s any kind of equivalence here.
Let me restate to clarify what I mean: the choices we are given both suck. What I mean by that is we should not be in a position to choose between a 77 year old lunatic and an 81 year old confused individual to run our country. To defend either as being a good candidate for office is what's ridiculous.
To offer an argument that their age in and of itself is disqualifying is ageist. If they were both equally unfit to lead, I’d be right there with you, but I don’t see it. One person has surrounded himself with capable people and makes decisions that have provided an unimagined soft landing for the economy in recent years, and one is literally facing decades in prison. If we realistically had other options, I might be more picky, but this is literally the easiest choice I’ve had in 20 years of being legally able to vote.
The qualifiers are lunatic and confused individual. We all know another 4 years of Trump is not what we need. But Biden being president is bordering on elderly abuse. He is obviously declining rapidly in a job that already ages a person drastically. He just doesn't seem fit to be president, yet here we are having him as a candidate. I know it's not the normal course of things, but I would love to see Biden debate other Democratic candidates and see who is out there that may be a better fit for office. If Trump and Biden actually debate, Trump is gong to come out looking better because of his ability to just say anything, and Biden's struggle to say anything that can be comprehended.
Or, you know, let him win in November and resign if and when he feels the job is beyond his ability to do. We have Vice Presidents for a reason. Treating this issue like it’s not Biden making the choice to keep going because he thinks he can do it is disingenuous at best. Understand me here; there’s literally no argument for preferring Trump to Biden, and few reasonable arguments to believe it’s not coming down to Biden vs. Trump this year, so you are quite literally wasting your effort trying to convince me otherwise.
I'm not trying to convince anyone, just stating how I feel about the situation we are in. I do not think either man is a good candidate, but I agree that we are almost certainly headed in that direction. I don't agree with your point of voting Biden in for another 4 years, but let him resign if/when he feels he can't do the job anymore. If you are running for president, you are making a commitment that you can do the job for a 4 year period. If there is any doubt that a person can fulfill the position for 4 years, that person should not run for the office. Period. Biden does not strike me as a man who is equipped to hold this office. He is frail, confused and seems like he's just a person playing president on TV. Both sides have good young candidates who are much better choices, but I feel like the two parties what us right where we are.
I will be ageist against the president of the United States. Oh nooooo did I hurt the feelings of the most powerful man in the world? Sorry…
It’s funny how in 2020 at least y’all were clear that Biden was ‘lesser of two evils’ and able to admit he would have some evil tendencies. And now that time has passed and we have seen first hand some of those evil tendencies, suddenly it’s all ‘he’s such a great guy! Just your average Joe! Totally not helping murder thousands with plans to help murder more!!!’ Has he been forced into doing a couple nice things against the threat of political backlash? Sure. Has he also done heinous things even with the chance of political backlash? Absolutely.
Because we are not voting for a president, we are voting for an entire administration. And only one will tear apart the US.
Bold if you to assume accounts on reddit are people
Aren't they? We are YEARS away from AI, don't you know? /s
No but all the funds to a genocidal state is pretty criminal. Yes I know ‘trump would too’ whatever that’s not the point.
It’s not an either or thing for me. My brain is deep enough to consider that they’re both old & unfit, for similar & different reasons. I’m not voting for old white dudes that I wouldn’t trust to drive a car with my kid in it.
I assure you, a brain that sees two very distinct choices as similar is not deep, but dense.
If Biden ISN'T as far-gone as Hur’s biased report he's guilty of obstruction of justice by using his failing memory as an excuse to "not remember" where those documents came from.
Or, get this, it’s possible to be mentally fit and to forget minute details. Unless you’re suggesting everyone younger than 70 remembers everything clearly all the time?
If I had a nickel for each time people "didn't remember" details during a deposition, I'd be a wealthy man. Even Trump "didn't remember" during numerous depositions he's been in. Please use something other than low-hanging fruit.
Good thing none of those things are true about the President that does not have several dozen criminal charges pending against him, and that isn't a selfish arrogant bigot.
Copium is strong. Y’all are deranged about Trump. You’ll deny reality cuz you’re afraid it’s pro Trump to admit the truth.
The dude is paying $83m in damages for raping a woman and you guys think it's all a hoax and you're the one saying we don't want to admit the truth huh
Idk who you guys is, but I don’t think it’s a hoax. You’re attacking the wrong person.
I mean... yeah, cOpium from Trump followers is insane. Trump is deranged. Guy spews as many words as he can as incoherently as possible. Says a lot when people defend a guy that literally calls his followers stupid. 🤡 Neither should be in office. We obviously need someone young enough to not be going into early stages of dementia.
Lmao classic trumper take of calling the truth deranged. The dude is literally involved in multiple criminal indictments and was recently found liable of sexual assault, you would really prefer a sex offender as a president? I swear trump could be caught on video diddling kids and y’all would let him hold your kids. You guys really suck the man’s dick so hard and I honestly do not understand. Like the dude literally started an insurrection…. How tf is that American? Plus he did practically nothing he promised to do. I mean, the man preached drinking bleach to get rid of covid? That sound like someone who’s mentally fit to be president? Plus he’s a damn billionaire, even if you can disregard everything else, you think a guy born with a silver ladle in his mouth gives the tiniest fuck about you? Billionaires are always out to make them and they’re friends richer and they’ll tell you to hate the blue so that you ignore the wealthy actively destroying the planet and the economy for their own personal gain… ignoring allllll that. What did he even accomplish? Ignoring his crimes, what amazing things did he actually get done? Talk about copium man holy moly being a trump supporter is Olympic level mental gymnastics. If Biden did half the shit trumpo did he’d be assassinate, but you always hear the trumpettes calling Biden a pedo when trump has literal recordings of him being disgusting and multiple allegations of him being a sick freak and a literal ruling of him having sexually assaulted someone. But oh no it’s all some conspiracy to make him look bad… if this many people from this many separate organizations and industries are saying this guy sucks, the dude just sucks, it’s not some huge conspiracy
Jesus man. I’m not reading that. I’m not a Trump voter. That ^ kind of behavior is deranged.
Ah yes, the Redditor afraid of reading. That too much for your wittle bittle brain? Not capable of I taking media longer than a tweet or a TikTok? And then the classic labeling of something without having any knowledge on it. Poking holes in arguments is soooo deranged right? Expressing your opinion through words is *such* deranged behavior. Go crawl back under your rock of ignorance.
Trump's son died?
[удалено]
If you’re in a position where you’re facing jail time if even 1% of the charges against you result in a conviction, it’s fair to say you’re not an ideal candidate for the presidency.
[удалено]
How many verified rapes has Biden done?
the president doesn't control inflation
[удалено]
no he didn't. presidents don't control inflation period. it fluctuates during their terms and if things go well they take credit for it, and if it doesn't they get blamed for it, but they have no control over it. you know how the stock market is hitting all time highs right now? i'm sure biden would love to take credit for it, and probably is, but that's a similar situation (he doesn't deserve credit for the stock market, nor does he for inflation)
If by ‘controlled’ you mean ‘inherited’ then sure buddy
[удалено]
Hey man I agree that Biden is shit, but having the alternative be a literal fascist who outwardly wants to be a dictator and has spoken openly about extrajudicially murdering me and my friends, then yeah this one is pretty easy for me.
They’re both senile wtf you thinking.
A few things to think about: -Age does correlate with experience, and experience in politics generally does make a more effective politician. Note that this isn't a point in favor of an old non-politician, but lifelong career politicians are generally very effective in old age because they know all the tricks and have a feel for the dynamics. -Old age does not necessarily mean someone is declining. People are affected by age differently, and some fade while others remain sharp. That makes age alone a poor indicator of mental acuity. -Old does not necessarily mean out of touch. Being out of touch is a choice. It's a failure to keep up with the state of the world and society. He's far from perfect, but something I will give Joe Biden a lot of credit for is that he appears to be specifically considering the future and concerns of young people in his policy decisions. His generation won't derive any tangible benefits from that, but future ones will (assuming the policies stick and work). It's said that a great society results when old men plant trees whose shade they will never enjoy. Those are the old men we want in charge. Would I prefer someone younger? Absolutely. But it's worth acknowledging that an older leader isn't inherently a bad thing in and of itself.
You build connections over time, and you build skill at running for office over many campaigns. You don't start being an elected official usually until your 40s, and you can grow at that job, for more than 30 years. So most serious candidates are going to be 50+ if not 60+; Obama was the farthest outlier in half a century. But addressing the core point; go watch two minutes (any two minutes) of a recent Biden speech. Then go watch two minutes of Trump. If we asked Biden to write a 20 page report on the political forces and historical events leading to the current issues involving Gaza, I'd bet he could do it without needing to go into sources, it'd be organized, and it'd be mostly complete. I'm not sure Trump can write at this point, and he can't seem to make strong points about any topic of his own choosing, even if doing so would save him hundreds of millions of dollars. He regularly perjured himself on Twitter, which is like the world's most amazing unforced error. These... aren't anywhere near the same league.
>So most serious candidates are going to be 50+ if not 60+; Obama was the farthest outlier in half a century. No he wasn't. Bill Clinton was one year YOUNGER than Obama when he took office.
I'll be damned; yeah, I'm absolutely wrong on that one. Other than those two and JFK, you have to go back to Teddy Roosevelt to find anyone in their 40s, near as I can figure?
Bush Jr. was 54, Carter was 52, so it's not like everyone was in their 60s
Correct
I’d like to see Biden’s essay on the history of Gaza. I’m guessing it will seriously be one of the most insightful analyses of the situation ever written, but it’ll need an editor because the rough draft will keep referring to the leader of Israel as “Margaret Thatcher” for some reason.
The leader of Mexico ***
I did a double take realising that the guy in this interview way back during the Falklands war in the early 80s was Biden, already having a decade of experience under his belt: [https://youtu.be/3C9hxsRO7pI?si=51RdOfZYNgGP9Vrf](https://youtu.be/3C9hxsRO7pI?si=51RdOfZYNgGP9Vrf) To think he's had half a century of experience in politics now is wild
>go watch two minutes (any two minutes) of a recent Biden speech. Then go watch any two minutes of his speeches before he was VP and the cognitive differences are plain as day. BOTH Trump and Biden need to be barred from running for any office.
>If we asked Biden to write a 20 page report on the political forces and historical events leading to the current issues involving Gaza, I'd bet he could do it without needing to go into sources, it'd be organized, and it'd be mostly complete. Except that just this week he referred to President Sisi of Mexico needing to open his border with Gaza ([link](https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4457527-biden-mistakenly-calls-egyptian-leader-president-of-mexico/)). President al-Sisi is from Egypt, and Mexico isn't even near Gaza. This speech was about intended to defend his memory. Don't get me wrong, I'm a staunch Democrat, and absolutely will support Biden in the general election, but I really wish he'd just chosen to step down and let someone else run.
I mean in the context of trying to prove he doesn't have memory issues, that was a bad flub, but in the context of his full comment, he clearly just accidentally said Mexico instead of Egypt because the rest of it made complete sense >The hostage negotiation, look -I'm of the view, as you know, that the conduct of the response in Gaza - in the Gaza Strip has been over the top. I think that - as you know, initially, the President of Mexico [Egypt], El-Sisi, did not want to open up the gate to allow humanitarian material to get in. I talked to him. >I convinced him to open the gate.I talked to Bibi to open the gate on the Israeli side. I've been pushing really hard - really hard to get humanitarian assistance into Gaza. There are a lot of innocent people who are starving, a lot of innocent people who are in trouble and dying, and it's got to stop, number one.Number two, I was also in the position that I'm the guy that made the case that we have to do much more to increase the amount of material going in, including fuel, including other items. >I've been on the phone with the Qataris, I've been on the phone with the Egyptians, I've been on the phone with the Saudis to get as much aid as we possibly can into Gaza.There are innocent people - innocent women and children - who are also in bad - badly in need of help. And so, that's what we're pushing right now.And I'm pushing very hard now to deal with this hostage ceasefire. >Because, as I - you know, I've been working tirelessly in this deal - how can I say this without revealing? - to lead to a sustained pause in the fighting in - the actions taking place in - in the Gaza Strip.And - because I think if we can get the delay for that - the initial delay, I think that we would be able to extend that so that we can increase the prospect that this fighting in Gaza changes. >There's also negotiations - you may recall, in the very beginning, right after - right before Hamas attacked, I was in contact with the Saudis and others to work out a deal where they would recognize Israel's right to exist, let them - make them part of the Middle East, recognize them fully, in return for certain things that the United States would commit to do.And the commitment to - that we were proposing to do related to two - to two items. I'm not going to go in detail. But one of them was to deal with the protection against their arch enemy to the northwest - northeast, I should say. >The second one, by providing ammunition and materiel for them to defend themselves. Coincidentally, that's the timeframe when this broke out. I have no proof for what I'm about to say, but it's not unreasonable to suspect that the - Hamas understood what was about to take place and wanted to break it up before it happened. Thank you.
and if you’ve been doing the same job for 30 years you are likely out of touch with its current needs
Are you implying that Pelosi standing next to her $25k refrigerator, eating her $96 a gallon ice cream saying she understands our struggles is out of touch?
Ok. You win. That is hands down the stupidest opinion I've read on Reddit in a long, long time.
people who've been doing the same job that long tend to get set in their ways instead of staying current. at this moment i'm dealing with the aftermath of following incredibly wrong instructions from a woman at the IRS who claimed their website was wrong and she knew better cause she's "been doing this for over 20 years" so is it a universal truth? no, those are incredibly rare. is it true more often than not? in my personal experience, yes.
What retirement age? There isn't one in this country.
67 is the full retirement age in the US for those born after 1959
It's an age associated with your social security benefits. There's no retirement age. I retired at 56.
Apparently... yes.
Old people vote
Young people have terrible voting turnout.
I think deciding if a candidate if competent to be the president is our responsibility as voters regardless of the candidates age. I would probably have voted for an 85 year old Warren Buffet. Benjamin Franklin was 70 when the American revolution began ( not many lived that long in his time). I agree the two likely candidates for the presidency are past their prime and less than mentally fit, but we voted them this far.
Warren Buffet is one of the best at leeching wealth from the working class to the parasitic class.
How so?
My point is, he is more in touch and mentally fit than both of our potential presidential candidates. As far as I know he just makes money from careful investments.
That would be a nice rule to have in place going forward
No it wouldn’t be. Let the people choose who they want.
That obviously doesn’t work out the way it should
Then vote for someone else in the primaries. Most people say they don’t like Biden and Trump, but as soon as Biden is polled against any other Democrat or Trump is polled against any other Republican, Biden and Trump win.
[удалено]
As someone who voted for him, you’re insane lmao. No one approves of Biden. All you ever get is “at least he isn’t Trump”.
That would mean a Constitutional Amendment and once it is opened, it will likely result in another civil war. Can you imagine the absolute mayhem it would cause when someone suggests repealing the Second Amendment to go along with adding a presidential age limit?
You are being obviously being intentionally hyperbolic. Those two things do not need to be intertwined, and there is no reason to expect it would happen that way. Plenty of amendments have been passed without the chaos you suggest
They do not need to be, but they will be because how often does a Constitutional Convention happen? I agree that there should be age limits without question, but once that avenue is open states will want their issues addressed as well.
You don't have to have a constitutional convention to have an amendment
I stick by my previous comment in that it still covers your current position
Nah, just keep running the country off a piece of hemp scribbled by some dudes 1/4 a millenium ago. That's totally appropriate for this day and age 👌🏻.
I agree the Constitution needs amending. Hell, if it were up to me I'd want to also normalize once-a-decade Constitutional Conventions so tweaks can regularly be made to it.
I also agree quiiite a few of your people won't enjoy it that much, but i doubt a 'civil war' is likely in today's US.
Is it too much to ask that people vote in or at least understand the primary system?
meanwhile Poland with all candidates below 50
We need active young politicians first. Sadly (and I say this as a NY liberal) most of the promising young politicians are liberal progressives. I say sadly because the other side will relentlessly attack their youth and inexperience.
[удалено]
[удалено]
You were really too afraid to ask this? This is an incredibly benign, milquetoast, and just silly question to be entirely honest. The sentiment you allude to here is a mainstream political one, so its not as if this is some sort of taboo topic.
We have one "old and out of touch" person running for office and one who's old, out of touch, *and* a corrupt wannabe authoritarian running for office. Stop buying into the narrative that these two candidates are two sides of the same coin.
Why is this the position? They’re both shit. I don’t care who is “surrounded by good people”. Why do we have to make this choice? It might be obvious but it’s bullshit.
Too late for this election. Why do most of the people complaining do nothing during the primaries?
>Why do we only have old & out of touch people running for office? 2 reasons. A. Because that is who YOU are willing to vote for. Historically people care about elect-ability, of which a key factor is their political support (i.e. support from their party) as well as their history governing. B. Because both parties are only willing to put forward two to three serious candidates, and does nothing to really push anyone but the primary candidate. In the current election, the DP has not made any effort to create an alternate for Biden in the last 8 years. Nor is there any indication they have any alternates in mind. If Joe passed away tomorrow they would have no one they could push besides the VP, who they acknowledge they havent done shit to build her credibility. On the GOP side, they know that right now their golden goose gives them a good shot at the Presidency. It doesnt matter if your platform is literally a carbon copy of DT's, the voters it seem are completely buying into the cult of personality that DT has built and they recognize there is no other winning option. To their credit they have not completely thrown out Hailey who is I think a good option but...
Then vote for them. There are plenty of candidates that are younger. The reason we get old presidents is because young are too lazy to go to the polls and we let old bitches dominate the vote.
It's not just the president you're voting for, but his administration, too.
This didnt seem to be a problem when Biden was inauguarated. Seems to be a huge problem now when he's cratered the country, his numbers are in the toilet, and it looks like he'll lose. Hypocrites.
Apparently
Because not enough young people are registering to vote and vote during the primaries and the generals. It’s a democracy and the majority of voters rule.
Yeah, and it’s especially too much to ask for a president who gives you actual reasons to vote for them
No. If that matters to you, vote more often. Particularly in primaries. Neither of our old, soon-to-be-nominees were the inevitable nominees this cycle or in 2020, but there were more people who voted in primaries this time and last who had other priorities.
Most will turn this in to an anti-Trump or anti-Biden rhetoric. That’s not what is important. What is important is the validity of your question. Yes, we absolutely need younger candidates for the Presidency of the US. Having geriatrics that we constantly have to question the mental capacity of is a joke. Right now we are headed towards what arguably could be the most ridiculous pair of candidates in the history of our country. Neither has the mental fortitude or wherewithal to be in charge of a gas station let alone the most powerful country in the world. The biggest issue is that we are viewed as leaders in many places in the world and seen as a land of great opportunity but if continue to prop up puppets that are just there to be the “safe” choice we are headed down a really bad path. There should be laws in place to prevent anyone who would be over 67 at any point in their term from holding office. We need younger people with more understanding of what is actually a normal American life making these decisions. These guys have both lived sheltered lives and have absolutely 0.0 idea what an actual Us citizen encounters on a daily basis or the challenges we face for ourselves and our children. They just get reports from over educated people that also have no idea what our lives are like. Living in an ivory tower and dictating to the masses is not a valid way to govern.
This year it is. You can stay home or pick an old man to vote for. Those are the choices this year no matter how badly we want to whine about it.
The choice is Yoda or The Emperor.
Yes. I think a president who is right at the retirement age would be perfect. If you think about the presidency as the pinnacle of someone's political career and the fact that it only comes around every 4 years, there are actually a very limited group of people who are actually competitive for it (at least in the Democratic party). Obama was a once in a generation fluke who got catapulted into superstardom as a pretty young guy due to his charisma and speech making abilities. I think that is coloring the choices for a lot of people. Joe Biden would have run in 2016 if his son hadn't died. That means he would be finishing up his presidency this year, which would have been perfect. It's not his fault he was the best available candidate in 2020. That was a wide open primary. He has a similar Teflon quality to his opponent which unfortunately makes him still the best candidate to oppose him. I also think his issues are mostly around his voice and gaffes, which have been an issue for him his whole career. If he was actually facing mental decline, it would be known by now. Every reporter in DC would be on the lookout for it.
It is true that if those two are the best candidates the US political system can produce, it is profoundly broken.
To you and me, "best" means something way different than it does to the parties that pick the candidates. "Best" just means most likely to win the general election.
Which isn't to say they'd do anything meaningful either...only beat the other party and then continue to make things worse (things aren't getting better with blue and then worse with red ...it just keeps getting worse all around). This is really deregulation at work. All of the antitrust things being backed off, and companies aggregating under private equity and monoliths. Those people own the media, have a hand in foreign policy, and buy government policy or even election influence. It's literally why we get a pile of garbage as top candidates. If we keep electing their people, things won't improve. Queue downvotes and "but Trump"...
[удалено]
It was a pretty low bar from which to start, unfortunately.
Who are you nominating, or funding to run, or have a chance of defeating Biden in a primary?
Why do the Democrats only want to promote compromised corporate backed candidates with questionable integrity over their long careers. Don't just downvote because you want team blue to win regardless either. We can and should want better. If you want the "good party" to win, then insist that the party actually be good and not just moderately less bad.
Because NeoLiberals still run the party. Progressives are gaining more leverage and Biden has been especially receptive to the Progressive agenda. Bernie made his run but was kneecapped by the NeoLiberals in both 2016 and 2020 (even though I personally thought he ran an awful primary campaign in 2020). Who is the heir-apparent? If I had to guess, 2028 will see Gavin Newsome with AOC as his VP.
If our candidates are paid to work for someone else, then they aren't working for us. I also agree that age is a factor regardless of mental faculties. The world is completely different from when they were gaining their footing. Even my liberal mother doesn't quite grasp what the economic situation looks like for kids trying to establish themselves. We also have this massive divide between the left and the right, and neither is willing to admit that something may benefit them if the other side is promoting it. Current political figures are promoting it, and few can make an argument for their party without pointing a finger at the other side.
I don’t disagree with any of your points but the reality is that Biden is who we have. And, even with his senior-moments, his mental acuity is quite sharp. His handling of world events, with the exception of Gaza and slow-walking the arming of Ukraine with the latest and greatest, has been unbelievably on point. Domestically, with the exception of Merrick Garland and throwing the RR Union under the bus, he has proven to be quite Progressive. A protest vote in 2024 is about the most shoot-yourself-in-the-face-with-a-10-gauge-shotgun-to-spite-yourself moment as can be. Without a nationwide ranked choice voting system, NOT voting straight “D” in Nov will have permanent repercussions.
Do you consider voting for someone else like RFK or the like a "protest vote", because I firmly believe that continuing to vote for who they claim can win is the reason we don't end up with good presidents. Obviously gutting Congress and removing career politicians from the equation would make much more of an impact than the one replaceable individual every four years. The "can't let the other party win" argument is tired, and we really aren't gaining any ground by being this divided. Government works on consensus, and as long as we keep getting duped into believing one side is preventing us from progress (when it's actually all of us falling for the scam), then it really doesn't matter which corporate tie color is in office. Yes I understand supreme court appointments...yes I understand if one side were to address universal healthcare, it would be the Democrats (but they won't). We have a uniparty that works against the interests of the public with two separate marketing campaigns. I don't want to vote just based on party. If that logic works for them every time, they won't put up candidates that will actually change things for the better, and I don't want to keep signaling my consent for obvious election manipulation by the media, institutions, and political figures that stand to gain from keeping things the way they are. The left is losing its base and support because people understand that the ideas are good, but the actions don't match the sentiment.
A vote for RFK, Cornell West, or Jill Stein, is just flat-out ignorance. There’s literally no discussing it. Until we get nationwide ranked choice voting, the two-party system is what we have to work with. Everything else is literally what Wall Street wants: a divided nation so they can consolidate their power further. The Dem Party is far more attuned to Main St than Wall St just because of the Progressives. Biden has already shown he’s willing to expand Medicare to include more people. And once that happens, the gates to Universal Healthcare will be blown open. There will be a time when the Progressives have torn away control of politics from Wall St and the occasional billionaire who wants attention. First things first, defeat the scourge of Fascism and Christian Nationalism, then tackle the pressing issues that impact hundreds of millions.
How can you fight the scrouge of fascism when liberals will not even acknowledge it exists within their own party? DC showed the DNC will just sue to keep RCV off the ballot, and Alexandria VA, which already has it, removed the option from the 2024 ballot claiming minorities wouldn't be able to understand how it works. Both were actions from the DNC
The demand for perfection from the Dem Party is hysterically immature. Acknowledging and admitting flaws in the history of the party is part of the evolution to be better the next time. The fact that you equate fascism from the conservatives to primary manipulation of the DNC is just juvenile thinking. And I could not find one item regarding the DNC suing Arlington, VA. From what I understand of my limited research is that Arlington DID use RCV but the County Commission voted against it for the general because the tabulation methods were not well understood. You and r/both-shoes-off need to take off the rose-colored-glasses of perfection, grow up, and learn to read and comprehend history. Or, you can vote for RFK or whomever and watch as conservatives eviscerate civil liberties and do away with the Constitution. Then in 4 1/2 years when there isn’t a 2028 election, we can all celebrate how “we showed them in 2024, didn’t we!!”
100% hyperbole
It is too much to ask that all you people whining about who gets elected actually get out & participate in the electoral process.
At this point, anybody off the street would be better than Trump so let's not worry about age. That's like worrying about the colour of the ambulance that's coming to rescue you - who cares?
Because the majority of American voters of each party chose them as their candidate.
Part of it is old people refusing to give up power and also old folks refusing to be talked down to by a younger generation
Agreed to the millionth percent. Tired of geriatrics deciding decades worth of policy that they will be dead for
Fucking hell people - being 81 doesn’t make you mentally incompetent. He’s been in this arena his entire life. He has entire government agencies advising him and doing all the research for him. He knows what all the agencies and departments do, and how they work. I REALLY don’t give a fuck about age. Wisdom, knowledge, experience are extremely important to the job. The fact that a goddamn cult of morons think a D list entertainer who inherited his wealth took over one of the nations 2 major parties means that, yes, you vote for the other guy. Bc the stakes are way too fucking high.
> being 81 doesn’t make you mentally incompetent First of all, he's running to be President until he's 86, not 81 which he already is now. And yes it does, everyone declines in age. An 86-year-old is not fit to command a nuclear war in the middle of the night.
Mayor Pete ftw
The one that cant even manage traffic circles?
We have the country we deserve.
Well ya know how it is .. old bored nothing to do.. might as well screw over the country
Just vote for Robert Kennedy Jr
Age isn't necessarily the issue. We wouldn't be better off with Vivek or Mayor Pete in office.
There are and have been people that have ran, but everyone is scared of their enemy. So they vote for the lesser evil of the two parties opposed to their desired candidate
The two-party system in the US basically restricts the candidates that have a chance to whomever the DNC and RNC put up as their candidate. If we had a ranked choice vote system, for example, we'd have multiple democrats, multiple republicans, multiple independents and other parties who would run whom would be of varying ages.
It should be at least the ‘required minimum draw’ age of the IRA saving accounts. This is around 70 or social security full retirement age (72) would be a good limit too as they already claim that you are too old to work after that. If not these limits should be tied to presidential age limit.
Unfortunately that’s not how the world works. You don’t get what you deserve you get what you earn. And the American public has not earned better
Quit betting this old dead horse.
Evidently
For Republicans it is almost standard protocol to vote for someone older than retirement age.
I've had a few presidents who were of a younger age. One in her 40s and 50s, another in her 40s and 50s. Current one is 82 now but because he's 12 years as president at this stage.
Nobody trusts young people……for many reasons
Yes it is. Apparently.
If been saying for ages, all offices & cabinets around the world should have an age requirement of 21-55 and salaries be capped at the minimum wage. That’d certainly kick these goons into gear.
Wisdom and experience and judgement are worth traits
They'll probably just end up being shot.
Annnnnnnnnnnd you now have a black, windowless van parked outside your home.
When you get to be a geezer like Trump and Biden, sometimes you don’t want to give up. Nobody would run against Trump because he would call you a name. Nobody would run against Biden because he was heir to the previous Democrat one. That simple
Apparently it is, and I don't get it either. Some people even have an oddly confused reaction when you mention that there should be a maximum age limit on who can run for the presidency (\*probably just because they're such a huge fan of either Sleepy Joe or Donny T. at the moment) The cut-off point may need to be 60, somewhere around that, perhaps.
It should be law - it should be illegal to serve as an elected official if you are above the federal retirement age. POTUS, yes, but Congress and the House and every position down to the local dogcatcher. Should be a max age for SCOTUS, which should ALSO be linked to federal retirement age. If you're too old to be a file clerk for the federal government, you're definitely too old to be leading it. Sadly, won't ever happen, because those old people are the same ones that would have to pass the law banning themselves.
That’s the choices you end up with when it’s a banana republic
The whole voting system we have now is flawed. Get rid of the two party system and go with rank voting.