The Democratic Candidates

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.

If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.

And, I will still vote for him.  (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)

that's not being ageist, that's going with factual statistics. 

Well, ageism is prejudice or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age.....

yeah, thanks for the definition. 

Jason P

I'm ageist.  Most people i know currently in their 70's had severe problems trying to program a VCR in their 50's and view the internet as a magical box controlled by demons.  But I think we can all agree that you don't have to be a genius to be POTUS these days.  A pulse and being a good liar seem to be the only requirements. 

Right now I put excitement level for voting in the next election at a 1.7 / 10  Pee Wee Herman might be getting another vote ...

HughFreakingDillon

there's nothing wrong with it crossing your mind that maybe you shouldn't vote for a guy who is going to be pushing 80 when he gets into office. ageism is if you specifically do not vote for him on that one criteria. 

F Me In The Brain

Jason P said:

I'm ageist.  Most people i know currently in their 70's had severe problems trying to program a VCR in their 50's and view the internet as a magical box controlled by demons.  But I think we can all agree that you don't have to be a genius to be POTUS these days.  A pulse and being a good liar seem to be the only requirements. 

Right now I put excitement level for voting in the next election at a 1.7 / 10  Pee Wee Herman might be getting another vote ...

      

You voted for Pee Wee as a write in?  I voted for Gary Johnson.  Pee Wee would have done a better job

oftenreading

Overall I’m not a big fan of electing those who are in their 70s but I do think you need to understand that average age of death is a terrible way to try to weed out which individuals are likely to die or be incapacitated in the next four year period. As an average, it is heavily weighted by mortality and morbidity due to lifestyle issues like smoking. If someone doesn’t have a raft of negative prognosticators when they reach the age of 70, then their odds of living into their 90s are probably better than many of us posting here today. 

(With the exception of me - two grandparents died after the age of 95 and one at 104 )

benjs

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.

If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.

And, I will still vote for him.  (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)

You're not being agist, you're being factual. Like it or not, and sorry for being callous here, but the older you get, the closer you are to death (on average). It's not agist to mitigate risk by having the conversation about the ramifications of the president potentially falling ill or dying part-way through a term. I think it would be a bad decision to blatantly disregard an important fact (if you believe the president should ideally serve while alive) prior to choosing a candidate. 

The Juggler

Folks, speaking as an 85 year old, I have full confidence in someone like Joe Biden to represent my generation and yours in a respectful fashion. 

HughFreakingDillon

benjs said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.

If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.

And, I will still vote for him.  (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)

You're not being agist, you're being factual. Like it or not, and sorry for being callous here, but the older you get, the closer you are to death (on average). It's not agist to mitigate risk by having the conversation about the ramifications of the president potentially falling ill or dying part-way through a term. I think it would be a bad decision to blatantly disregard an important fact (if you believe the president should ideally serve while alive) prior to choosing a candidate. 

exactly. 

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.

If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.

And, I will still vote for him.  (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)

Well hey, I'm team Warren, and she's a young and vibrant 69, lol.

I did not know she was 69.  She looks great.  

PJ_Soul

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.

If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.

And, I will still vote for him.  (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)

Well hey, I'm team Warren, and she's a young and vibrant 69, lol.

I did not know she was 69.  She looks great.  

Well hold onto your hat - Nancy Pelosi is 79!!

HughFreakingDillon

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.

If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.

And, I will still vote for him.  (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)

Well hey, I'm team Warren, and she's a young and vibrant 69, lol.

I did not know she was 69.  She looks great.  

really? I was going to actually estimate older than that. she looks close to the same as my MIL, and she's 81. My mom is 71 and looks way younger than warren. 

PJ_Soul

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.

If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.

And, I will still vote for him.  (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)

You're not being agist, you're being factual. Like it or not, and sorry for being callous here, but the older you get, the closer you are to death (on average). It's not agist to mitigate risk by having the conversation about the ramifications of the president potentially falling ill or dying part-way through a term. I think it would be a bad decision to blatantly disregard an important fact (if you believe the president should ideally serve while alive) prior to choosing a candidate. 

exactly. 

It's actually still ageism, lol. Facts don't render ageism moot, sorry. That just isn't how it works. I mean, it's also factual that a pregnant women isn't the best person to hire because she will be less available and will to be away for a long stretch of time soon, and is much more likely to have to call in sick, etc, and is even more likely to die than a non-pregnant person. Those are facts..... It's still considered discrimination to not hire someone just because she's pregnant.

In any case, Presidents can die. That is why their VP selections are important. I'm personally feel fine voting for a great 80 year old candidate, because a great candidate has a great back up with complementary political views in case he drops dead.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.

If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.

And, I will still vote for him.  (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)

You're not being agist, you're being factual. Like it or not, and sorry for being callous here, but the older you get, the closer you are to death (on average). It's not agist to mitigate risk by having the conversation about the ramifications of the president potentially falling ill or dying part-way through a term. I think it would be a bad decision to blatantly disregard an important fact (if you believe the president should ideally serve while alive) prior to choosing a candidate. 

exactly. 

It's actually still ageism, lol. Facts don't render ageism moot, sorry. That just isn't how it works. I mean, it's also factual that a pregnant women isn't the best person to hire because she will be less available and will to be away for a long stretch of time soon, and is much more likely to have to call in sick, etc, and is even more likely to die than a non-pregnant person. Those are facts..... It's still considered discrimination to not hire someone just because she's pregnant.

In any case, Presidents can die. That is why their VP selections are important. I'm personally feel fine voting for a great 80 year old candidate, because a great candidate has a great back up with complementary political views in case he drops dead.

I already stated this very clearly, and benjs alluded to it. it's ageism if that is the only factor, as you stated here. all things being equal, if you don't choose biden because of his age, yes, that's ageism. if it's but one factor you consider, no, it isn't. 

dignin

njnancy said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

Going to be interesting to see how hard the other candidates will go after him. 

So this is very interesting.  A few have taken a jab, namely Warren and Sanders.  More to the point, as we've seen on reposts here, it's Bernie's political assassins that have been doing the dirty work.  They post out of context information.  Fortunately, they generally preach to the converted, but we shall see if it bleeds into the 'mainstream' media. 

Hmmm I wonder who Bernie supporters remind me of.....

There are some similarities at the 'bro' level. 

So Bernie and Warren have already broken the 'Indivisible Pledge' . Bernie was the first to sign, probably because of short memories of his 2016 attitude in the primaries.  Bernie and his fans can't help demonizing anyone who isn't Bernie. Warren has a stellar policy knowledge base and is extremely engaging, but as part ot the progressive (not liberal) movement, if you do not believe in progressive policies and how they should be implemented and the quickness in which they should occur, then you are wrong and bad and need to be called out. It is much  like the Far Right wing of the Repub party. They are absolutists and loud and condescending.

Dems are a big tent party and though the far left progressives may have some good ideas, they need to listen to people who do not have the same view as they do.  Passion is great; dismissal of other ideas is not. Just because you are the loudest faction of the party doesn't mean that you don't need to work with Liberals, Moderates and Conservatives. They are just as important and are suited to the areas they represent. Healthcare is foremost in most Americans minds. A consensus can be made with this within the party that can be a winner with the country. Unless Dems are going to be trashing each other, doing Trump's work for him.


If you want to be President, then getting rid of Trump is THE most beneficial change needed for the good of the country. Without that happening, none of your policies mean a damn thing. Trump is the enemy, not your fellow Democratic candidates. So get your shit together Dems. I'm talking to you progressives, stop with the damn purity tests. 

https://pledge.indivisible.org/

Three seemingly easy promises. 

If a democrate running in a primary can't handle some criticism in the primary how do you think they will handle the GOP slimefest waiting for them on the other side?

The democratic challengers need to be battle hardened. 

The Juggler

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.

If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.

And, I will still vote for him.  (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)

Well hey, I'm team Warren, and she's a young and vibrant 69, lol.

I did not know she was 69.  She looks great.  

Well hold onto your hat - Nancy Pelosi is 79!!

They're both sexy as hell. 

mrussel1

The Juggler said:

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.

If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.

And, I will still vote for him.  (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)

Well hey, I'm team Warren, and she's a young and vibrant 69, lol.

I did not know she was 69.  She looks great.  

Well hold onto your hat - Nancy Pelosi is 79!!

They're both sexy as hell. 

That's some young lovin' for you. 

Spiritual_Chaos

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:

F Me In The Brain said:

PJ_Soul said:

I'm not being politically correct. I just think that there ARE old people who are absolutely cut out for that job. I'm not saying all are, but I hate to think that someone who could do a GREAT job might be overlooked, to the detriment of all, just because people are ageist.

If saying that I am concerned about an inbound POTUS being the same age as a guy usually dying at IS ageist, than I can own that.

And, I will still vote for him.  (Just wish they would pick a young grandparent and not an old one)

Well hey, I'm team Warren, and she's a young and vibrant 69, lol.

I did not know she was 69.  She looks great.  

Well hold onto your hat - Nancy Pelosi is 79!!

Pelosi sounds and looks like on an old woman with makeup though.

Warren looks just a tad over 50.

njnancy

dignin said:

njnancy said:

mrussel1 said:

cincybearcat said:

mrussel1 said:

Hi! said:

Going to be interesting to see how hard the other candidates will go after him. 

So this is very interesting.  A few have taken a jab, namely Warren and Sanders.  More to the point, as we've seen on reposts here, it's Bernie's political assassins that have been doing the dirty work.  They post out of context information.  Fortunately, they generally preach to the converted, but we shall see if it bleeds into the 'mainstream' media. 

Hmmm I wonder who Bernie supporters remind me of.....

There are some similarities at the 'bro' level. 

So Bernie and Warren have already broken the 'Indivisible Pledge' . Bernie was the first to sign, probably because of short memories of his 2016 attitude in the primaries.  Bernie and his fans can't help demonizing anyone who isn't Bernie. Warren has a stellar policy knowledge base and is extremely engaging, but as part ot the progressive (not liberal) movement, if you do not believe in progressive policies and how they should be implemented and the quickness in which they should occur, then you are wrong and bad and need to be called out. It is much  like the Far Right wing of the Repub party. They are absolutists and loud and condescending.

Dems are a big tent party and though the far left progressives may have some good ideas, they need to listen to people who do not have the same view as they do.  Passion is great; dismissal of other ideas is not. Just because you are the loudest faction of the party doesn't mean that you don't need to work with Liberals, Moderates and Conservatives. They are just as important and are suited to the areas they represent. Healthcare is foremost in most Americans minds. A consensus can be made with this within the party that can be a winner with the country. Unless Dems are going to be trashing each other, doing Trump's work for him.


If you want to be President, then getting rid of Trump is THE most beneficial change needed for the good of the country. Without that happening, none of your policies mean a damn thing. Trump is the enemy, not your fellow Democratic candidates. So get your shit together Dems. I'm talking to you progressives, stop with the damn purity tests. 

https://pledge.indivisible.org/

Three seemingly easy promises. 

If a democrate running in a primary can't handle some criticism in the primary how do you think they will handle the GOP slimefest waiting for them on the other side?

The democratic challengers need to be battle hardened. 

Arguing policy is fine, but throwing dirt and bashing each other will damage the nominee while Trump just sits on his golden throne tweeting.

I'm not saying that the nominees can't handle criticism, that's not my reasoning at all. Fight, debate, argue topics and the specifics of how you are going to make it happen, but don't make it personal or disqualifying so that supporters of one candidate can not switch to the nominee if their favorite doesn't make it. There are plenty of topics the press bring up that test the candidate's ability to handle difficult questions. 

I think, after 2+ years, the whole damn country is battle hardened. 

Meltdown99

Since the age issue is out in the open...what would happen if the Democrat nominee dropped dead a week before the election?  Can the Dems just appoint somebody?  Or does his/her running mate become the nominee for president?  I would hope that this scenario has been thought out...

mrussel1

Meltdown99 said:

Since the age issue is out in the open...what would happen if the Democrat nominee dropped dead a week before the election?  Can the Dems just appoint somebody?  Or does his/her running mate become the nominee for president?  I would hope that this scenario has been thought out...

I have no clue. The logistics of putting someone else on the ballot are pretty overwhelming.  Perhaps technically you can elect a dead person, and then the VP takes over?