politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I don’t think it’s particularly ageist to say that octogenarians should generally be avoided for a 4 year commitment to leadership roles. It’s no more ageist than barring 16 year olds from the job imo.
That said, in a battle between risky to lose competence midway and blatantly incompetent now the former always wins
Agreed. That being said it sucks to be stuck choosing between two ppl who won't live long enough to see the ramifications of their decisions and policies.
I don't see how that matters. Do you think Clinton, Bush or Obama made better choices because they got to live to see the outcomes materialize? I don't think so which is why I don't think it matters.
You want a president who makes decisions that benefit the people not a president who makes decision s that benefit them (or a group of elites). In that sense it doesn't matter if Biden won't see the results of his decisions, as long as he makes decisions that benefit the people. When it comes to Trump we can now be pretty certain he will make decisions that benefit him.
Exactly this. One could even argue that Biden being older makes him harder to be influenced by exterior factors such as bribes and whatnot. Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Trump isn't exactly a spring chicken either. He now has a half a billion dollars in judgements that he owes in addition to being within 4 years of Biden's age. The issue is the double standard and blatant disregard for the fact that he has numerous conflicts of interest that should disqualify Trump
Oh I fully agree and this is absolutely being used to try to give another too old person the same position. Especially considering trump is both already senile and most importantly a fucking fascist who has attempted to overthrow the government after losing an election
Dark Brandon’s last act will be to bring about the first female US president. Based.
I think it is different, 16 year olds have no experience, limited knowledge of the world, and under developed pre frontal lobes. You want experienced leaders with wisdom, much more than inexperienced leaders with a lack of wisdom, they aren't equivalent
Yes, it's obviously a different scenario. The risks are different. But, along with wisdom, you want presidents to be alive.
When Biden took office in 2020, he was 78. The government's actuarial tables say that there was basically a 50/50 chance he'd make it 8 years.
Having survived 4 years, if he's elected again he'll be 82. The actuarial tables say he'll probably still be alive at the end of his term, but he might not make it to the next set of midterms.
Now, Biden is in good health. With his health and the great medical care he gets, he'll probably do better than the actuarial tables say. I'd say the odds are good he'll outlive Trump, even if he's an older man. But, it seems reckless to put a guy into office when there's a very decent chance he'll be dead before the end of his term.
Then there's the matter of his mental sharpness. There are strong signs it's fading. President is mostly a job about delegation, but still, you need to make some decisions, and at least understand what it is you're delegating. Trump, again, is probably as bad or worse, but it doesn't seem good to trust a guy with clearly fading mental abilities to a stressful job that benefits from a sharp mind.
If we all trusted his VP to step in and run things well if there were a problem, that would be one thing, but her approval ratings are even worse than his. Sometimes that happens when a president doesn't want the VP to steal the spotlight. But, in this case you'd think both Biden and Harris would benefit from everybody thinking that she's doing a lot of work, doing it extremely well, and could easily step in as president.
Also, I'm not convinced there are strong signs his mental acuity is degrading. Everything people point out are things Biden had been doing for decades, or since birth. The amount of times I've seen people say look, he is cognitively impaired because he can't get his words out! The guy has had a stutter his whole life, he mixes up some facts here and they're, he's been doing that forever. Memory and cognitive specialists don't seem to think he has some growing problem (see On the Media show this week).. So what are these strong signs, except for the media publishing no led than 45 articles about this, with no facts to justify them?
I think it's clear that he's not as sharp as he was 30 or 40 years ago. But, he was always someone who made a lot of gaffes. But, I think it's not dementia, just a typical lack of sharpness that comes from getting old.
Not that I disagree with you, but what do you base that on? The cognitive experts I've heard on the radio don't seem to agree and they have specialty training.
They don't agree that there's any difference between him 30-40 years ago and how he is now?
I base it on what he was like 30-40 years ago and what he's like now.
Look at him in this video:
https://youtu.be/zTrObD_lnfQ?t=35
Or in this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_v00iGJCLY
Compare that to a modern Biden speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia2sy7z1Cqs
I don't think it's dementia or anything, he's just old. I don't know of any person his age who is as sharp as they were 40 years ago.