Bringing some discussion from the "impending impeachment" thread over here...it was suggested, correctly, that the "cooler" candidate wins.
So, who's "cooler" than Trump...well, just like with Bush, I don't get why people thought he was so cool. But they do. So...
I don't see any of the democratic candidates as appreciably cooler with the exception of Beto. Maybe Mayor Pete. Joe? No. In 2016, I wanted Joe to run (not that the party would have allowed Hillary to lose). He kinda had a sharp tongue and I think would have run up the score in the debates. Now? Now, we're embedded in the idea that we need someone "different." And he's super-old. He's not going to score any "cool" points.
It doesn't look good. I say run Kamala and Booker and hope he drops an n-bomb.
No one here ever discusses the African American vote in the Democratic party, but it's impossible to underestimate how critical that is, and the fact that right Biden is dominating that vote. He has real credibility in that demographic and the SC primary is very early in the process.
*ahem*
Someone here has discussed it quite a bit
Ok - skipping over your pissing match...
You seriously think no one here understands that the Dems get the black vote? And when they don't get enough they lose (see Trump, Donald).? Really? Maybe I'm missing something here.
i've never said anything about people not understanding anything... I have simply pointed out in the past on the AMT that black voter turnout dropped in 2016 and that is the ultimate reason HRC lost, not Russian tweets.... and i've also stated I believe the reason the black voter turnout dropped was the lack of a minority on the ballot, especially after 8 years of Obama being POTUS.
that is literally the only two points I have made. people can agree or disagree, doesn't matter to me
Was meant for mrussel1 sorry, quote feature was being weird
I'm saying that we haven't really discussed it, not that people here were unaware of it. We have discussed it intensely from the perspective of the young, millenials, the progressives vs the liberals, and women but very little on the African American vote. I was pointing out that while the loud and boisterous social media presence may seem to want someone new and different and more liberal, I'm not sure that the rank and file feel the same (as evidenced by current polling) and the African American community is a huge part of that constituency.
But Hills was rank and file and they didn't come out to vote. I'd assume if you want to get more african american voters, you'll need Harris/Booker or someone that looks like them on the ticket.
And I do think this is the space that hurts Buddha-Judge's chances the most. He will need them in the general election and I do not think the African american community will be excited to vote for a gay man. Could be wrong.
Yes, the older community is definitely more socially conservative. I think you're right. Whoever the candidate is, everyone's going to have to swallow a bit of pride and vote for your "not favorite" candidate.
Need someone who doesn't have one foot in the grave.
Age discrimination alive and well in America.
Sorry, but this is a lazy and relatively brainless statement.
We covered this previously - but there are lots of posts so we can do it again, if you would like.
How about the fact that if I am 34 I cannot be POTUS? Where is the Ageism cry against that?
Age should be a viable consideration. Would you elect someone who was 102? 12?
Is it fair to openly say a woman is unqualified, or a black or a hispanic?
Some 55 yo's have trouble with memory. I'd say Bernies mind is probably sharper than yours. Definitely mine (I'm about Stone's age FWIW )
How can age possibly factor into these examples?
.... "As directed by the Constitution, apresidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older."
I hear your point -- and I have met and spoken with Bernie on 2 occasions, years apart from one another. Not a fan of his, politically, but think he is a pretty interesting guy and is very sharp.
Bringing up the point about a person's gender or ethnicity does not apply, here. (In my opinion)
Why not approach the discussion from this pov:
The constitution is ageist. Why can a 34 year old not be POTUS? Is it fair to openly say a woman is unqualified, or a minority?
Some 36 year olds have (insert criticism here) - and some 78 year olds have (insert same criticism) - why is it OK for the constitution to set an age mimunum but not an age maximum.
There is already ageism at work when it comes to POTUS qualifications -- so why would it be discriminatory for a person of some intelligence to want to discuss the realities that go along with a person's mental and physical capabilities between the ages of 78-86, discuss the realities of the average changes of a person's mental and physical capabilities between the age of 78 and then 86, the incredible demands that a job such as POTUS puts on a person's mental and physical well-being, and then consider that it is quite possibly a poor idea to elect a person who is 78?
I laugh at the idea that I am discriminating. If that is by the definition, fine. I own it, but I do not think there is anything beyond good common sense behind asking such questions. I do not buy that it folds into the idea that "a woman, or a black or a hispanic" is unqualified.
I actually did not say that Joe is unqualified. I said there should be a person who is nominated who does not have one foot in the grave...which is 'silly' for old as hell. I do think Joe as a person, is one of the most qualified people we could consider. I will vote for Joe if it comes down to Joe vs. The Grand Wizard Trump.
To me dismissing a person automatically whether due to their age, ethnicity or gender are all forms of discrimination.
Now if Biden continues to stutter in the same manner as he did in his China comments I agree attacking his mental capacity would be fair. But to judge him solely on his age is wrong. He deserves the chance to prove that he is up to the task.
The age requirement might be unfair but it is in the constitution. The only way around that is to amend it. If Biden does get the nomination it would be pretty exciting if he selected Beto or mayor Pete for VP
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,625
Eh. You are making it about an attack on Joe for his age but it is a question about the soundness of a decision to elect anyone that is 78 to the position. Joe could sound perfect today (instead of how he sounded on China) and I would make the same question.
Eh. You are making it about an attack on Joe for his age but it is a question about the soundness of a decision to elect anyone that is 78 to the position. Joe could sound perfect today (instead of how he sounded on China) and I would make the same question.
In all fairness, Biden has just joined the race. All of the other candidates were not polished at the beginning of their runs. Some of them had a hard time answering questions and getting together a cohesive message; including the young ones. Even seasoned politicos need to adjust to the pace of the crazy Presidential campaign road.
I'm not going to judge Biden from a snippet taken out of a speech. I didn't see the whole speech and all of the candidates took some time to get their message together, get into the flow of the race and find their best self. Because he came into the race late, most of the other candidates are in the flow of the campaign trail and Biden is going to look less polished for a short time. Regardless of age, it's a grind that takes getting used to.
If he never works out the kinks, then I can assess him according to his appeal, not his age. I, personally, don't have a problem with the ages of the candidates, whether very young or older (impending deaths of people in their late 60's and 70's, or whatever age, is a bit too much for me). If anything happens to any of the candidates that becomes the nominee, there is a process. And if someone develops dementia suddenly, there is an Amendment for that).
I will see how things progress over the next couple of weeks. The first debate is coming up and that will be a good judge of sharpness and capability. For me.
Post edited by njnancy on
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,625
I understand, Nancy. For me, I don't care if he is razor sharp....doesn't change the concerns I have. Those are logical, to me, and not reactionary or emotional.
Still voting for him above Donny every day of the week.
Need someone who doesn't have one foot in the grave.
Age discrimination alive and well in America.
Sorry, but this is a lazy and relatively brainless statement.
We covered this previously - but there are lots of posts so we can do it again, if you would like.
How about the fact that if I am 34 I cannot be POTUS? Where is the Ageism cry against that?
Age should be a viable consideration. Would you elect someone who was 102? 12?
Is it fair to openly say a woman is unqualified, or a black or a hispanic?
Some 55 yo's have trouble with memory. I'd say Bernies mind is probably sharper than yours. Definitely mine (I'm about Stone's age FWIW )
How can age possibly factor into these examples?
.... "As directed by the Constitution, apresidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years, and 35 years of age or older."
I hear your point -- and I have met and spoken with Bernie on 2 occasions, years apart from one another. Not a fan of his, politically, but think he is a pretty interesting guy and is very sharp.
Bringing up the point about a person's gender or ethnicity does not apply, here. (In my opinion)
Why not approach the discussion from this pov:
The constitution is ageist. Why can a 34 year old not be POTUS? Is it fair to openly say a woman is unqualified, or a minority?
Some 36 year olds have (insert criticism here) - and some 78 year olds have (insert same criticism) - why is it OK for the constitution to set an age mimunum but not an age maximum.
There is already ageism at work when it comes to POTUS qualifications -- so why would it be discriminatory for a person of some intelligence to want to discuss the realities that go along with a person's mental and physical capabilities between the ages of 78-86, discuss the realities of the average changes of a person's mental and physical capabilities between the age of 78 and then 86, the incredible demands that a job such as POTUS puts on a person's mental and physical well-being, and then consider that it is quite possibly a poor idea to elect a person who is 78?
I laugh at the idea that I am discriminating. If that is by the definition, fine. I own it, but I do not think there is anything beyond good common sense behind asking such questions. I do not buy that it folds into the idea that "a woman, or a black or a hispanic" is unqualified.
I actually did not say that Joe is unqualified. I said there should be a person who is nominated who does not have one foot in the grave...which is 'silly' for old as hell. I do think Joe as a person, is one of the most qualified people we could consider. I will vote for Joe if it comes down to Joe vs. The Grand Wizard Trump.
To me dismissing a person automatically whether due to their age, ethnicity or gender are all forms of discrimination.
Now if Biden continues to stutter in the same manner as he did in his China comments I agree attacking his mental capacity would be fair. But to judge him solely on his age is wrong. He deserves the chance to prove that he is up to the task.
The age requirement might be unfair but it is in the constitution. The only way around that is to amend it. If Biden does get the nomination it would be pretty exciting if he selected Beto or mayor Pete for VP
No one is dismissing, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Everybody chooses the factors that matter to them when casting a vote (variables), and decides how much each of those factors matter to them (weightings). Aging comes with pros and cons, and if we're saying no to 'discriminating' by the above definition, that has to go both ways. If we're going to say no to factoring in the correlation between age and poor health, we should also say no to factoring in the correlation between age and wisdom, age and ability to navigate the system, age and connections, etc. I think it would be pretty unwise to omit all of these factors in our internal decision-making, as this would actually be choosing an uninformed decision over an informed one.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Eh. You are making it about an attack on Joe for his age but it is a question about the soundness of a decision to elect anyone that is 78 to the position. Joe could sound perfect today (instead of how he sounded on China) and I would make the same question.
In all fairness, Biden has just joined the race. All of the other candidates were not polished at the beginning of their runs. Some of them had a hard time answering questions and getting together a cohesive message; including the young ones. Even seasoned politicos need to adjust to the pace of the crazy Presidential campaign road.
I'm not going to judge Biden from a snippet taken out of a speech. I didn't see the whole speech and all of the candidates took some time to get their message together, get into the flow of the race and find their best self. Because he came into the race late, most of the other candidates are in the flow of the campaign trail and Biden is going to look less polished for a short time. Regardless of age, it's a grind that takes getting used to.
If he never works out the kinks, then I can assess him according to his appeal, not his age. I, personally, don't have a problem with the ages of the candidates, whether very young or older (impending deaths of people in their late 60's and 70's, or whatever age, is a bit too much for me). If anything happens to any of the candidates that becomes the nominee, there is a process. And if someone develops dementia suddenly, there is an Amendment for that).
I will see how things progress over the next couple of weeks. The first debate is coming up and that will be a good judge of sharpness and capability. For me.
Bingo! This is called "Facebook news".
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I read it. Can't say I completely agree but I'm thinking. Although this counters every other allegedly educated assessment that in 2016 the media was bias for Hillary against Sanders and Trump. Both of these theories cannot be true.
Btw, her initial math dating 11% of white male Democrats voted for Hillary is wrong. Its 22% using her methodology, which is flawed. She ignores independents. Including them, it rises to 31%.
Eh. You are making it about an attack on Joe for his age but it is a question about the soundness of a decision to elect anyone that is 78 to the position. Joe could sound perfect today (instead of how he sounded on China) and I would make the same question.
If Biden appears healthy at 78 he would be expected to easily outlive his 4 year term. Voters would then have the opportunity to decide again if he is healthy enough for the job. I sense at 82 voters would be significantly wary but I'd hope they judge him on how he campaigns and his experience.
I also sense Biden is interested in one term.
Not sure I am familiar with the concept of judging a candidate by his age yet it not be discrimination
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,625
I guess we can agree to disagree (I also would question the statement that just being "easily expected to outlive his 4 year term" is good enough - for me, that isn't.) I am happy to wear the discrimination badge of horror if it means that I am using all available facts to draw reasonable conclusions when comparing two (or more) candidates Isn't that what we all try to do?
Still voting for Old Joe over Old Grand Wizard Donny if it comes to it
Eh. You are making it about an attack on Joe for his age but it is a question about the soundness of a decision to elect anyone that is 78 to the position. Joe could sound perfect today (instead of how he sounded on China) and I would make the same question.
If Biden appears healthy at 78 he would be expected to easily outlive his 4 year term. Voters would then have the opportunity to decide again if he is healthy enough for the job. I sense at 82 voters would be significantly wary but I'd hope they judge him on how he campaigns and his experience.
I also sense Biden is interested in one term.
Not sure I am familiar with the concept of judging a candidate by his age yet it not be discrimination
Did you see my comment above? I tried to express why I feel judging a candidate by his age is not discrimination, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Eh. You are making it about an attack on Joe for his age but it is a question about the soundness of a decision to elect anyone that is 78 to the position. Joe could sound perfect today (instead of how he sounded on China) and I would make the same question.
If Biden appears healthy at 78 he would be expected to easily outlive his 4 year term. Voters would then have the opportunity to decide again if he is healthy enough for the job. I sense at 82 voters would be significantly wary but I'd hope they judge him on how he campaigns and his experience.
I also sense Biden is interested in one term.
Not sure I am familiar with the concept of judging a candidate by his age yet it not be discrimination
Did you see my comment above? I tried to express why I feel judging a candidate by his age is not discrimination, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
I understand what you and Brett are saying. Age is part of the whole equation that you use when you are vetting what youse guys want in your number one candidate. I don't use age as part of my decision process, but that doesn't make your decision process invalid. Perhaps if you can get Brett to lay off the one foot in the grave comments it will help. (not holding my breath) But I do understand what you are saying. No pun intended but you are concerned there might be a Weekend at Bernie's situation on Inauguration Day, or others might factor that in and choose the evil one.
I don't believe you are being prejudiced. Just prudent. Because we disagree doesn't make either of us wrong.
Now, I know that mostly everyone on here does not think this way. But perhaps this conversation about how we perceive factors in decision making can help some of you understand that there are people in American who, when evaluating what they want in a President, find being a female to be a disqualifying factor. Proof is in the pictures of the 45 Presidents and Vice Presidents. Perhaps the age discussion might be able to shed a different light on that topic, Or maybe not, but I hope it does.
This discussion has actually been mostly civil and has created understanding for some of us. We all be thinking with our different brain, have different priorities and concerns but most importantly are putting a lot of thought into this process.
I think that I can have a negative knee jerk response to anything that seems to be dismissing a segment of society because of how I feel about women & other groups being basically shut out of places of power. In the future, I will check if my emotional thinking is overtaking my intellectual thinking. I'll try, at least.
I have no illusions, especially after the backlash to Obama, which seemed like such a wonderful step forward, that America is ready to embrace a woman as Commander in Chief. I hope I'm wrong, but look at the horrible course (in)correction America took after Obama. We can be such a forward thinking country but too much too fast freaks out a portion of the country, I think that is obvious to most of us. I mean, freaking Donald Trump is President. While many people were feeling great about social progress, other people's heads were exploding. We are a complicated group of citizens.
Anyway, this has been a good conversation and will continue to be. It made me think outside my self and that changed my view of other's thinking, to a certain degree. I like that. I like when people stand by their beliefs and can debate without demeaning, but with the intent of raising understanding. That's the best stuff that happens here.
Biden's hot topics center on Nazis, Jim Crow laws, and President Cleveland's controversial proposed expansion into the Oklahoma territories. Very exciting.
Biden's hot topics center on Nazis, Jim Crow laws, and President Cleveland's controversial proposed expansion into the Oklahoma territories. Very exciting.
How so? Maybe you could expound on sleepy joe and his approval of the OK territory. Speaking of which, maybe we could annex it to Mexico with Texas?
Biden's hot topics center on Nazis, Jim Crow laws, and President Cleveland's controversial proposed expansion into the Oklahoma territories. Very exciting.
How so? Maybe you could expound on sleepy joe and his approval of the OK territory. Speaking of which, maybe we could annex it to Mexico with Texas?
Biden's hot topics center on Nazis, Jim Crow laws, and President Cleveland's controversial proposed expansion into the Oklahoma territories. Very exciting.
How so? Maybe you could expound on sleepy joe and his approval of the OK territory. Speaking of which, maybe we could annex it to Mexico with Texas?
Am I allowed to vote yet? Shit!
Well, are you registered? Better check trice. Got ID? Better make sure it’s acceptable. Got an original birth certificate? You might need it.
Biden's hot topics center on Nazis, Jim Crow laws, and President Cleveland's controversial proposed expansion into the Oklahoma territories. Very exciting.
How so? Maybe you could expound on sleepy joe and his approval of the OK territory. Speaking of which, maybe we could annex it to Mexico with Texas?
Am I allowed to vote yet? Shit!
Well, are you registered? Better check trice. Got ID? Better make sure it’s acceptable. Got an original birth certificate? You might need it.
With the issues that Jason was saying were Biden's focus, I was more worried that we had traveled back in time (maybe to when America was great?) and women weren't allowed to vote yet.
It will be interesting if executive orders will be penned to allow gun licenses but not driver's licenses or, god forbid, student ID's as forms of identification. I have no idea what happened to my voter registration card, probably disintegrated. The government should mail every registered voter a new one. That would be helpful, so forget that idea.
Eh. You are making it about an attack on Joe for his age but it is a question about the soundness of a decision to elect anyone that is 78 to the position. Joe could sound perfect today (instead of how he sounded on China) and I would make the same question.
If Biden appears healthy at 78 he would be expected to easily outlive his 4 year term. Voters would then have the opportunity to decide again if he is healthy enough for the job. I sense at 82 voters would be significantly wary but I'd hope they judge him on how he campaigns and his experience.
I also sense Biden is interested in one term.
Not sure I am familiar with the concept of judging a candidate by his age yet it not be discrimination
Did you see my comment above? I tried to express why I feel judging a candidate by his age is not discrimination, and I'm curious to hear your thoughts.
I understand what you and Brett are saying. Age is part of the whole equation that you use when you are vetting what youse guys want in your number one candidate. I don't use age as part of my decision process, but that doesn't make your decision process invalid. Perhaps if you can get Brett to lay off the one foot in the grave comments it will help. (not holding my breath) But I do understand what you are saying. No pun intended but you are concerned there might be a Weekend at Bernie's situation on Inauguration Day, or others might factor that in and choose the evil one.
I don't believe you are being prejudiced. Just prudent. Because we disagree doesn't make either of us wrong.
Now, I know that mostly everyone on here does not think this way. But perhaps this conversation about how we perceive factors in decision making can help some of you understand that there are people in American who, when evaluating what they want in a President, find being a female to be a disqualifying factor. Proof is in the pictures of the 45 Presidents and Vice Presidents. Perhaps the age discussion might be able to shed a different light on that topic, Or maybe not, but I hope it does.
This discussion has actually been mostly civil and has created understanding for some of us. We all be thinking with our different brain, have different priorities and concerns but most importantly are putting a lot of thought into this process.
I think that I can have a negative knee jerk response to anything that seems to be dismissing a segment of society because of how I feel about women & other groups being basically shut out of places of power. In the future, I will check if my emotional thinking is overtaking my intellectual thinking. I'll try, at least.
I have no illusions, especially after the backlash to Obama, which seemed like such a wonderful step forward, that America is ready to embrace a woman as Commander in Chief. I hope I'm wrong, but look at the horrible course (in)correction America took after Obama. We can be such a forward thinking country but too much too fast freaks out a portion of the country, I think that is obvious to most of us. I mean, freaking Donald Trump is President. While many people were feeling great about social progress, other people's heads were exploding. We are a complicated group of citizens.
Anyway, this has been a good conversation and will continue to be. It made me think outside my self and that changed my view of other's thinking, to a certain degree. I like that. I like when people stand by their beliefs and can debate without demeaning, but with the intent of raising understanding. That's the best stuff that happens here.
Nancy, thanks so much for taking them time to write this out, nuance and explanation and all!
What I'll say is that there are different factors, and some are valid, others are invalid, but it's up to us internally to check those factors to decide whether they are worth existing as factors, and whether they deserve the weightings our minds naturally give them. That's where the unconscious bias against females, against age, etc. come into play.
I don't believe in protecting factors that haven't been self-checked, but I'm also not naive enough to think that people do a good enough job questioning their underlaying assumptions before acting on them. In that way, I feel you're correct that there can still exist discrimination, and this needs to be dealt with.
I guess to take my comment above and expand on it further, I would say that as long as a factor can be logically explained how it will impact job performance, a voter can use it without acting discriminatorily. If a factor can't (or hasn't been attempted to) be logically explained, then a voter is almost always participating in discrimination through their own unconscious bias (and thanks to PJ_Soul for posting that article on it, which I learned a lot from).
One last thing - you mentioned your emotional thinking and your intellectual thinking. I really believe both are massively important and can't exist that well without each other, and that if you use your intellectual thinking enough, you inevitably get right back to emotional thinking. I help my team make their work lives better by working with them to understand and improve process, implement helpful and easy tools, and provide avenues for growth and leadership training and opportunities. For anyone who helps people on a regular basis (which my gut says could be everyone on here), I'm sure we've all seen how thinking emotionally is the only way to connect with a person or a team to establish that trust to let you help or teach them something new. Without it, that's a non-starter.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
0
Options
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 30,625
Good points. Nancy, I do believe that some (many?) Americans do indeed think being a woman is a big factor in their evaluation of a candidate. No fixing stupid, as my dear old dad used to say.
One foot in the grave is here to stay! (If it truly bothers you u am happy to retire it....I feel it makes the point with a little humor. I get that gallows humor isn't for all. No fucking way I'm making 78, myself)
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Comments
Whoever the candidate is, everyone's going to have to swallow a bit of pride and vote for your "not favorite" candidate.
www.headstonesband.com
To me dismissing a person automatically whether due to their age, ethnicity or gender are all forms of discrimination.
Now if Biden continues to stutter in the same manner as he did in his China comments I agree attacking his mental capacity would be fair. But to judge him solely on his age is wrong. He deserves the chance to prove that he is up to the task.
The age requirement might be unfair but it is in the constitution. The only way around that is to amend it. If Biden does get the nomination it would be pretty exciting if he selected Beto or mayor Pete for VP
Joe could sound perfect today (instead of how he sounded on China) and I would make the same question.
I'm not going to judge Biden from a snippet taken out of a speech. I didn't see the whole speech and all of the candidates took some time to get their message together, get into the flow of the race and find their best self. Because he came into the race late, most of the other candidates are in the flow of the campaign trail and Biden is going to look less polished for a short time. Regardless of age, it's a grind that takes getting used to.
If he never works out the kinks, then I can assess him according to his appeal, not his age. I, personally, don't have a problem with the ages of the candidates, whether very young or older (impending deaths of people in their late 60's and 70's, or whatever age, is a bit too much for me). If anything happens to any of the candidates that becomes the nominee, there is a process. And if someone develops dementia suddenly, there is an Amendment for that).
I will see how things progress over the next couple of weeks. The first debate is coming up and that will be a good judge of sharpness and capability. For me.
For me, I don't care if he is razor sharp....doesn't change the concerns I have.
Those are logical, to me, and not reactionary or emotional.
Still voting for him above Donny every day of the week.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
On Elizabeth Warren and the False Problem of "Likeability"
Although this counters every other allegedly educated assessment that in 2016 the media was bias for Hillary against Sanders and Trump. Both of these theories cannot be true.
Btw, her initial math dating 11% of white male Democrats voted for Hillary is wrong. Its 22% using her methodology, which is flawed. She ignores independents. Including them, it rises to 31%.
If Biden appears healthy at 78 he would be expected to easily outlive his 4 year term. Voters would then have the opportunity to decide again if he is healthy enough for the job. I sense at 82 voters would be significantly wary but I'd hope they judge him on how he campaigns and his experience.
I also sense Biden is interested in one term.
Not sure I am familiar with the concept of judging a candidate by his age yet it not be discrimination
(I also would question the statement that just being "easily expected to outlive his 4 year term" is good enough - for me, that isn't.)
I am happy to wear the discrimination badge of horror if it means that I am using all available facts to draw reasonable conclusions when comparing two (or more) candidates
Isn't that what we all try to do?
Still voting for Old Joe over Old Grand Wizard Donny if it comes to it
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I don't believe you are being prejudiced. Just prudent. Because we disagree doesn't make either of us wrong.
Now, I know that mostly everyone on here does not think this way. But perhaps this conversation about how we perceive factors in decision making can help some of you understand that there are people in American who, when evaluating what they want in a President, find being a female to be a disqualifying factor. Proof is in the pictures of the 45 Presidents and Vice Presidents. Perhaps the age discussion might be able to shed a different light on that topic, Or maybe not, but I hope it does.
This discussion has actually been mostly civil and has created understanding for some of us. We all be thinking with our different brain, have different priorities and concerns but most importantly are putting a lot of thought into this process.
I think that I can have a negative knee jerk response to anything that seems to be dismissing a segment of society because of how I feel about women & other groups being basically shut out of places of power. In the future, I will check if my emotional thinking is overtaking my intellectual thinking. I'll try, at least.
I have no illusions, especially after the backlash to Obama, which seemed like such a wonderful step forward, that America is ready to embrace a woman as Commander in Chief. I hope I'm wrong, but look at the horrible course (in)correction America took after Obama. We can be such a forward thinking country but too much too fast freaks out a portion of the country, I think that is obvious to most of us. I mean, freaking Donald Trump is President. While many people were feeling great about social progress, other people's heads were exploding. We are a complicated group of citizens.
Anyway, this has been a good conversation and will continue to be. It made me think outside my self and that changed my view of other's thinking, to a certain degree. I like that. I like when people stand by their beliefs and can debate without demeaning, but with the intent of raising understanding. That's the best stuff that happens here.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
It will be interesting if executive orders will be penned to allow gun licenses but not driver's licenses or, god forbid, student ID's as forms of identification. I have no idea what happened to my voter registration card, probably disintegrated. The government should mail every registered voter a new one. That would be helpful, so forget that idea.
What I'll say is that there are different factors, and some are valid, others are invalid, but it's up to us internally to check those factors to decide whether they are worth existing as factors, and whether they deserve the weightings our minds naturally give them. That's where the unconscious bias against females, against age, etc. come into play.
I don't believe in protecting factors that haven't been self-checked, but I'm also not naive enough to think that people do a good enough job questioning their underlaying assumptions before acting on them. In that way, I feel you're correct that there can still exist discrimination, and this needs to be dealt with.
I guess to take my comment above and expand on it further, I would say that as long as a factor can be logically explained how it will impact job performance, a voter can use it without acting discriminatorily. If a factor can't (or hasn't been attempted to) be logically explained, then a voter is almost always participating in discrimination through their own unconscious bias (and thanks to PJ_Soul for posting that article on it, which I learned a lot from).
One last thing - you mentioned your emotional thinking and your intellectual thinking. I really believe both are massively important and can't exist that well without each other, and that if you use your intellectual thinking enough, you inevitably get right back to emotional thinking. I help my team make their work lives better by working with them to understand and improve process, implement helpful and easy tools, and provide avenues for growth and leadership training and opportunities. For anyone who helps people on a regular basis (which my gut says could be everyone on here), I'm sure we've all seen how thinking emotionally is the only way to connect with a person or a team to establish that trust to let you help or teach them something new. Without it, that's a non-starter.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
Nancy, I do believe that some (many?) Americans do indeed think being a woman is a big factor in their evaluation of a candidate.
No fixing stupid, as my dear old dad used to say.
One foot in the grave is here to stay!
(If it truly bothers you u am happy to retire it....I feel it makes the point with a little humor. I get that gallows humor isn't for all. No fucking way I'm making 78, myself)
Best campaign sign ever?
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022
Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022