Politics: 2020 Dem POTUS candidate catch all discussion thread
- Thread starter Bamaro
- Start date
- Status
Biden’s age does concern me. On January 20, 2021...
Biden will be 78
Sanders will be 79
Warren will be 71
Trump will be 74
If any of those three Democrats win, they will break Trump’s record for oldest to ever take office. Reagan was 17 days shy of 79 when he left office.
Harris will be 56 and Buttigieg will be 38.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Biden will be 78
Sanders will be 79
Warren will be 71
Trump will be 74
If any of those three Democrats win, they will break Trump’s record for oldest to ever take office. Reagan was 17 days shy of 79 when he left office.
Harris will be 56 and Buttigieg will be 38.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
warren may be old, but she's a lot faster than the other three
https://twitter.com/mj_lee/status/1161707429777874949
And Bernie is the oldest but he still seems sound of mind though. Age affects folks different and it has affected Biden and Trump poorly.
True. One of my best friends, whom I graduated with from high school, wished me a happy birthday on Facebook the other day. (We're in only infrequent contact and my birthday's not until December - and my name's not "Al.") When I gently reminded him, he said he got confused easily and had trouble keeping things straight. I just thought to myself "There goes another one." That said, I'm not so sure about Biden. My memory is that he's always been pretty much that way.
OTOH, Trump doesn't have the same brain he had 30 years ago...
Yeah, Biden has had a history of making gaffes, but usually quickly corrects them which Trump never does. I have never had to speak too much in public, but can tell anyone who has not that sometimes you cannot find the right word or the wrong words comes out inexplicably. It is best to correct the gaffe immediately if possible.True. One of my best friends, whom I graduated with from high school, wished me a happy birthday on Facebook the other day. (We're in only infrequent contact and my birthday's not until December - and my name's not "Al.") When I gently reminded him, he said he got confused easily and had trouble keeping things straight. I just thought to myself "There goes another one." That said, I'm not so sure about Biden. My memory is that he's always been pretty much that way.
I too am concerned with the age of all the candidates being mentioned above and believe Warren to be the least affected by her age. If the majority of American voters truly want honesty and experience at the expense of an occasional gaffe then Biden has the best chance to beat Trump. I am confident that at his age Biden will put together the very best cabinet and WH staff and let them do their jobs. The same would go for Warren, I however am not sure about Bernie.
I think the problem is mostly that the gen x cohort have spent most of their adult life being stifled by boomers clogging up the career progression paths. Wouldn't be surprising at all to think politics has the same problem. The oldest of millennial cohort are just now meeting the presidential age qualification. For the most part, they're cutting their teeth in House of Representative positions which is the normal progression for a high-achiever young politician.
Appropriately:
Appropriately:
Age discrimination laws weren't a thing until boomers started getting older and realized the proceeding generations are going to do to them what they did to their predecessors.
Last edited:
I tend agree that Warren seems to have been the least affected, mentally, by age. Trump, it has been leaked, is the laziest president ever, appearing in the oval office around 11:00 AM, after a morning of TV watching. Reagan wasn't known for long hours, either. I think all of the leading candidates have the mental ability to hold the job. "W" did. Not every president is going to be an intellectual blaze of glory like a Carter or an Obama. You could almost make the argument that intellect hampered Carter. Common sense is probably more important, that and the ability to select good people and let them do their jobs, as you've indicated with Biden.
Age and physical ability, I think is more of a concern. I realize that all of the candidates have stood up to the rigors of campaigning and that's a good sign. However, four - or eight - years is a long time, starting with age 79 or 80. Using myself as an example, you'd have a hard time finding anyone who'd state that I've lost much of, if any, of my mental ability - so far. I'll be 80 in a couple of months, so - older than any of the candidates. Now, I'm in better shape than 95% of the people I know who are my age. I just got through splitting and stacking three cords of green oak and hickory firewood. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of 12K lb. Still, I don't think I could guarantee that I could stand up to the demands of the office for, at a minimum, four years, or even, for that matter, guarantee that I, as a certainty, will be around for four years. It's just a function of mathematical probabilities. All in all, as you can see, I wish the leading candidates were younger...
IMO, this is a case for an upper age limit on running for President. A person has to be at least 35 to run and hold the office of President; I would suggest that an upper age limit of 65 be established so a two term President would be, at the oldest 73, when his term is up. This should also apply to Supreme Court Justices as well as every member of Congress. Age and term limits should be put in place, no more life time jobs. Opinion only, I know all the reasons why it would never fly.
Alabama limits judges to an upper age of 70, and that applies to all levels...
Provided the president remains in the race....I think overall the Democrats have a tough row to hoe in this election, unless the nominee can convince the voters he/she isn't going to take their money and use it for stuff that not only they don't care about - but stuff that goes against their beliefs.
I won't get into debating whether or not those things are what the country needs - or should have. Plenty of those debates have already been posted here, so (for me anyway) it's a waste of bandwidth to rehash it all.
People can talk all they want about how a president should act and racism and Russian meddling and (insert your personal outrage here) - but IMHO, most voters are going to see any Democratic candidate as someone who wants to take their tax dollars and waste it.
Come up with a new PR campaign and then we'll talk. Right now - it's like a big thud.
In my humble opinion.
I won't get into debating whether or not those things are what the country needs - or should have. Plenty of those debates have already been posted here, so (for me anyway) it's a waste of bandwidth to rehash it all.
People can talk all they want about how a president should act and racism and Russian meddling and (insert your personal outrage here) - but IMHO, most voters are going to see any Democratic candidate as someone who wants to take their tax dollars and waste it.
Come up with a new PR campaign and then we'll talk. Right now - it's like a big thud.
In my humble opinion.
I think we can agree that most Americans think that democrats will take more tax dollars. I am not sure that most Americans think they will waste those tax dollars. I would need to see evidence that Americans think it is a waste to spend tax dollars on better education, infrastructure, etc.
Just throwing out my opinion, as I see it.
Here are some of the things, whether or not they are actually representative of the Democratic Party, that many are seeing as representative of the Democratic party.
-Tax American citizens to provide health care for illegals.
-Open borders.
-Non citizens allowed to vote.
-Abolish ICE
-Slavery reparations
-Sanctuary cities
-Free college tuition
-Forgive student loans
-Medicare for all
Again - I'm not trying to debate anything - just offering a perspective.
I think the optics are not in line with what much of American voters want to happen - that's all I am saying.
Too many institutions under siege in this country. Those who are voting for Trump are not necessarily voting for the man himself but voting against what they see as those wishing to destroy our institutions.
Further.....an argument could be made if they concentrated 100% on only one thing - eliminating our national debt - they would win votes they ordinarily wouldn't have.
Of course, that wouldn't help with their base as much as all the stuff they are "harping" about now - so that's the chess game (I guess) they are playing.
I just think it's a losing strategy. Doesn't even seem like a strategy in fact.
Further.....an argument could be made if they concentrated 100% on only one thing - eliminating our national debt - they would win votes they ordinarily wouldn't have.
Of course, that wouldn't help with their base as much as all the stuff they are "harping" about now - so that's the chess game (I guess) they are playing.
I just think it's a losing strategy. Doesn't even seem like a strategy in fact.
You do realize that any Democrat would be running against an incumbent who has has already taken “their money and use it for stuff that not only they don't care about - but stuff that goes against their beliefs.”
I realize your initial inclination might be to say nu-uh! But it’s a fact that the president is putting up immigrants in substandard housing at rates of 750$ per night per person, all paid to many of the private prison companies that donated HUGE amounts of money to his campaign. It’s also a fact that the tax cuts pushed by the president blew a trillion dollar hole in the deficit and while not a direct use of tax dollars today, will have to be paid by taxpayers eventually. Let’s also not forget the fact that he and his policies have required congress to pass bills that bail out the American farmers disproportionately hurt by his penis measuring contest with China.
These are just easy examples of spending that I think many Americans “don’t care about - but goes against their beliefs.” Trotting out the old tired “Democrats waste tax dollars” when evidence from the current, and certainly the previous republican administration, show that the Democrats are not the party with little regard for how they spend Americans tax dollars. Unless you want to turn this into a discussion about how the Republicans are the furthest thing from fiscal responsibility and sanity, that argument isn’t valid. It may be the perception, and I’d love to have that discussion, but you didn’t frame it as a matter of perception in your statement.
However I do think you are right in one regard. There are plenty of people willing to vote for this idiot even if they know the circumstances I listed above. I believe this is because they would rather believe that the snake-oil they bought about 3 years ago really is going to cure all their ails. Too bad they are unwilling to open their ears and eyes to the evidence available to them.
Last edited:
I never pay attention to the farthest left or right positions. They never achieve them when in power. Take for instance trump saying he would make Mexico pay for the wall. Nope. How about fixing isis in a month. Not happened in over 2 years. Obama only passed part of his health care plan. The farthest positions are only half met.
I hope that's not what you believe of the Democratic Party. You can take a sampling of the furthest right of the Republican Party and come up with something which resembles Nazi Germany...
Tell me where in the democrat party's platform these things can be found. Far right pundits do not count as a source. That's important since you are just reciting right wing propaganda at this point.
If the bolded weren't so sad it would be hilarious. No modern president has done more to subvert our institutions than the Cheeto in Chief. CIA? Undermines them all the time. FBI? Undermines them. Military? Aside from the farcical Space Force and empty praise he insults POW's, parents of dead enlisted men, and hurls bigoted comments at Navajo code veterans. He subverts the rule of law at every turn. I laugh, but I do so with deep concern.
The right nuts have been calling the democrats Leninists for years and the left nuts have been calling the Republicans fascists for years.
- Status
Latest threads
-
US Army replacing 5.56mm rifle with a 6.8mm for infantry- Started by Tidewater
- Replies: 6
-
-
Game One of Alabama-Texas A&M Alabama Series Moved to Friday as Part of Doubleheader- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Bama Game Thread: Bama Gymnastics - NCAA Championship Semi-finals (ESPN2 | 4/18 @ 8pm CT)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 32
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-