758
Joe Biden suddenly leads convicted felon Donald Trump in multiple battleground states
(www.newsweek.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
758 points (95.9% liked)
politics
19240 readers
2458 users here now
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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I would like to see more requirements:
instead of this I would like to see independent physical and mental acuity tests performed and released publicly. no need to bring age into it if they are fit. and if they aren't fit they shouldn't be able to run even if they're young.
Sure but I also want that the person to be able to last the whole 4 years period without running into any of those health issues with time. Might be hard to get the health measurements right and get people to accept it. Easier for people to just understand the person did not meet the age criteria.
And what happens when medical science increases life expectancy? U would have to amend the constitution to pass this. Think of how nightmarish it is to do this. Now think of amending this AGAIN when life expectancy increases every year.
Who decides what "well known facts" are? A particular non-political committee? The supreme court was supposed to be this committee. It clearly became political quickly...
Make the upper age limit be average life expectancy minus X years. This has the added bonus of motivating politicians to actually try to increase average life expectancy.
The scientific community, and certainly not the Supreme Court. Not sure how you came to that conclusion.
Because there are different "scientific communities" - some of them rogue and stupid. I'm not the poster you were responding to, but I would assume that the arbiter of your hypothetical of which scientific communities would be valid would go to the Supreme Court.
No. The scientific community polices* itself with peer review. The rogue and stupid communities are peer reviewed out of existence. You can submit all the falsified "research" you want, but if your published results can't be replicated, you will be labeled a quack and your "findings" will go ignored by the rest of the scientific community.
No government-affiliated judicial body is involved in verifying science, because judges are experts in law, not science.
Do you know how long it takes to replicate another's studies? Sometimes that never happens.
Are you suggesting that the United States Supreme Court weighs in on scientific studies that haven't been replicated yet?
No, I'm still commenting about Mio's suggestion upthread, that "not lying about science" is a terrible #5 criterion for president.