Elizabeth Warren and Her Ancestry. Thoughts?

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

brianlux said:

Reagan was 69 when he took office.  Trump is 70.  But God forbid we have a 70 year old Democratic old woman run for president.  Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh noooooooooooo!!!

And Reagan's second term was a fucking shitshow, with poor old Nancy changing the goddamn diapers. And we know how Trump's faculties are holding up.

People age differently.  I know or know of people well into there 70's who are sharp, smart as a tack and graced by years of wisdom. 

Some examples:

Wendell Berry:  A well known and respected long time bookseller recently told me, "Wendell Berry [who is 84 years old] is the greatest living writer in America today.  Berry is still producing fine works.

John Muir: Muir was still doing great writing into his 70's

Judi Dench: still doing great work at 83

I know this very well, Brian. But I'm not taking that chance with the leader of the free world, especially when the 25th Amendment was apparently just written for shits and giggles.

I'm just ageist when it comes down to something like this. I own it. I think it's pragmatic more than anything.

Well... it's just ageist. I'm sure sexists think they're being pragmatic too.

Ignoring you once again (or trying to anyway) tagging anything I've written with sexism--apparently, I'm not communicating well, so I'll stop after this--but I'll just ask, where's our dreamy, cool-sock-wearing young-ish person who would have a chance on the presidential ticket (for either party)?

So far, I've heard Trump, Warren, Biden, even Sanders. Holy shit! will those last two even be alive in 2020?

Is Kamala considering? Booker? Hickenlooper? Klobuchar? Cuomo?

Would anyone dare primary Trump? Haley? Sasse? Walker? Flake? Baker? McMaster?

Wow. I have never once thought you're sexist, so I have no clue where you're getting that from. If I do happen to be referencing sexism in reply to your posts a lot, it's not deliberate or targeted in any way, and I'm truly not aware of it ... If that's how it's turning out, well, maybe shit you say warrants it, one way or another?

But in any case, I don't know what you mean by "tagging". I used the comparison because I thought it was apt.

Anyway, I'm not sure how you'd like someone to respond to openly ageist posts. Don't get me wrong, some old people totally aren't fit for office, but if they actually make it far enough to be nominated, it's certainly not because they don't have all their faculties (normally - Trump is the exception to every rule). I think some old people aren't fit for the position just because their views are way outdated because they aren't the type of person who can absorb new ideas and concepts. They can't move with the times. But other older people can do that perfectly well, so it's not their actual age that I'm focusing on. It's the ability to be open to new things and ideas.

Damn, it feels good to be an ageist!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2019/03/08/too-old-president-science-says-yes/oMgYxC6waKIIyKWuHciJCJ/story.html

Of course, feel free to argue with science. It's very popular these days.

I have never and will never argue against science. What I am arguing is that there are old people who absolutely and completely capable of performing the job well (again, the assumption is that they DO have all their faculties if they get into office). The general decline of old people is a universal truth that nobody ever debated. But what I will argue is that there are old people who are extraordinary enough to properly serve as POTUS (and all POTUSs should be extraordinary... something that many Americans seem to have forgotten). To say that ALL old people should be kept from the position just because they're old, discounting the facts of their actual capabilities, even in the name of science (which is generalized in the context of the article you posted) is 100% ageist. FWIW, I also find it very ageist that there is a minimum age for the position. Again, just like with the old people, there are also young people extraordinary enough to be capable of doing the job well.

I agree with a lot of what you said.  Except the end.  You really think there is a 34 year old out that that could be president?  Most presidents have college degrees and even master's or law degrees.  Let's just assume that is 7 years. I don;t think a minimum age is all that bad a thing.

Now - I guess that's my opinion and I could exercises it with my vote...so maybe there shouldn;t be one.  I'm going to have to read up on it and see what the thought process was.

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

brianlux said:

Reagan was 69 when he took office.  Trump is 70.  But God forbid we have a 70 year old Democratic old woman run for president.  Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh noooooooooooo!!!

And Reagan's second term was a fucking shitshow, with poor old Nancy changing the goddamn diapers. And we know how Trump's faculties are holding up.

People age differently.  I know or know of people well into there 70's who are sharp, smart as a tack and graced by years of wisdom. 

Some examples:

Wendell Berry:  A well known and respected long time bookseller recently told me, "Wendell Berry [who is 84 years old] is the greatest living writer in America today.  Berry is still producing fine works.

John Muir: Muir was still doing great writing into his 70's

Judi Dench: still doing great work at 83

I know this very well, Brian. But I'm not taking that chance with the leader of the free world, especially when the 25th Amendment was apparently just written for shits and giggles.

I'm just ageist when it comes down to something like this. I own it. I think it's pragmatic more than anything.

Well... it's just ageist. I'm sure sexists think they're being pragmatic too.

Ignoring you once again (or trying to anyway) tagging anything I've written with sexism--apparently, I'm not communicating well, so I'll stop after this--but I'll just ask, where's our dreamy, cool-sock-wearing young-ish person who would have a chance on the presidential ticket (for either party)?

So far, I've heard Trump, Warren, Biden, even Sanders. Holy shit! will those last two even be alive in 2020?

Is Kamala considering? Booker? Hickenlooper? Klobuchar? Cuomo?

Would anyone dare primary Trump? Haley? Sasse? Walker? Flake? Baker? McMaster?

Wow. I have never once thought you're sexist, so I have no clue where you're getting that from. If I do happen to be referencing sexism in reply to your posts a lot, it's not deliberate or targeted in any way, and I'm truly not aware of it ... If that's how it's turning out, well, maybe shit you say warrants it, one way or another?

But in any case, I don't know what you mean by "tagging". I used the comparison because I thought it was apt.

Anyway, I'm not sure how you'd like someone to respond to openly ageist posts. Don't get me wrong, some old people totally aren't fit for office, but if they actually make it far enough to be nominated, it's certainly not because they don't have all their faculties (normally - Trump is the exception to every rule). I think some old people aren't fit for the position just because their views are way outdated because they aren't the type of person who can absorb new ideas and concepts. They can't move with the times. But other older people can do that perfectly well, so it's not their actual age that I'm focusing on. It's the ability to be open to new things and ideas.

Damn, it feels good to be an ageist!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2019/03/08/too-old-president-science-says-yes/oMgYxC6waKIIyKWuHciJCJ/story.html

Of course, feel free to argue with science. It's very popular these days.

I have never and will never argue against science. What I am arguing is that there are old people who absolutely and completely capable of performing the job well (again, the assumption is that they DO have all their faculties if they get into office). The general decline of old people is a universal truth that nobody ever debated. But what I will argue is that there are old people who are extraordinary enough to properly serve as POTUS (and all POTUSs should be extraordinary... something that many Americans seem to have forgotten). To say that ALL old people should be kept from the position just because they're old, discounting the facts of their actual capabilities, even in the name of science (which is generalized in the context of the article you posted) is 100% ageist. FWIW, I also find it very ageist that there is a minimum age for the position. Again, just like with the old people, there are also young people extraordinary enough to be capable of doing the job well.

I agree with a lot of what you said.  Except the end.  You really think there is a 34 year old out that that could be president?  Most presidents have college degrees and even master's or law degrees.  Let's just assume that is 7 years. I don;t think a minimum age is all that bad a thing.

Now - I guess that's my opinion and I could exercises it with my vote...so maybe there shouldn;t be one.  I'm going to have to read up on it and see what the thought process was.

Yes, there are absolutely unbelievable geniuses who would be great at the job who are 34 and under IMO. Like I said, whoever is nominated should be extraordinary. We're not talking about normal people here. Or we shouldn't be, anyway. And even then, I'm still largely sticking to the current "expectations" - or reality - of the level of experience and qualifications of those in any level of office. I mean come on... looks at some of the politicians who are in office. It's not exactly an extraordinarily high bar right now, whatever the age. And we all know that if a person is younger or older than the norm, even higher expectations are placed on them, so if they actually meet those expectations in that situation (ageism excluded), they truly are worthy of the job IMO.

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

brianlux said:

Reagan was 69 when he took office.  Trump is 70.  But God forbid we have a 70 year old Democratic old woman run for president.  Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh noooooooooooo!!!

And Reagan's second term was a fucking shitshow, with poor old Nancy changing the goddamn diapers. And we know how Trump's faculties are holding up.

People age differently.  I know or know of people well into there 70's who are sharp, smart as a tack and graced by years of wisdom. 

Some examples:

Wendell Berry:  A well known and respected long time bookseller recently told me, "Wendell Berry [who is 84 years old] is the greatest living writer in America today.  Berry is still producing fine works.

John Muir: Muir was still doing great writing into his 70's

Judi Dench: still doing great work at 83

I know this very well, Brian. But I'm not taking that chance with the leader of the free world, especially when the 25th Amendment was apparently just written for shits and giggles.

I'm just ageist when it comes down to something like this. I own it. I think it's pragmatic more than anything.

Well... it's just ageist. I'm sure sexists think they're being pragmatic too.

Ignoring you once again (or trying to anyway) tagging anything I've written with sexism--apparently, I'm not communicating well, so I'll stop after this--but I'll just ask, where's our dreamy, cool-sock-wearing young-ish person who would have a chance on the presidential ticket (for either party)?

So far, I've heard Trump, Warren, Biden, even Sanders. Holy shit! will those last two even be alive in 2020?

Is Kamala considering? Booker? Hickenlooper? Klobuchar? Cuomo?

Would anyone dare primary Trump? Haley? Sasse? Walker? Flake? Baker? McMaster?

Wow. I have never once thought you're sexist, so I have no clue where you're getting that from. If I do happen to be referencing sexism in reply to your posts a lot, it's not deliberate or targeted in any way, and I'm truly not aware of it ... If that's how it's turning out, well, maybe shit you say warrants it, one way or another?

But in any case, I don't know what you mean by "tagging". I used the comparison because I thought it was apt.

Anyway, I'm not sure how you'd like someone to respond to openly ageist posts. Don't get me wrong, some old people totally aren't fit for office, but if they actually make it far enough to be nominated, it's certainly not because they don't have all their faculties (normally - Trump is the exception to every rule). I think some old people aren't fit for the position just because their views are way outdated because they aren't the type of person who can absorb new ideas and concepts. They can't move with the times. But other older people can do that perfectly well, so it's not their actual age that I'm focusing on. It's the ability to be open to new things and ideas.

Damn, it feels good to be an ageist!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2019/03/08/too-old-president-science-says-yes/oMgYxC6waKIIyKWuHciJCJ/story.html

Of course, feel free to argue with science. It's very popular these days.

I have never and will never argue against science. What I am arguing is that there are old people who absolutely and completely capable of performing the job well (again, the assumption is that they DO have all their faculties if they get into office). The general decline of old people is a universal truth that nobody ever debated. But what I will argue is that there are old people who are extraordinary enough to properly serve as POTUS (and all POTUSs should be extraordinary... something that many Americans seem to have forgotten). To say that ALL old people should be kept from the position just because they're old, discounting the facts of their actual capabilities, even in the name of science (which is generalized in the context of the article you posted) is 100% ageist. FWIW, I also find it very ageist that there is a minimum age for the position. Again, just like with the old people, there are also young people extraordinary enough to be capable of doing the job well.

I agree with a lot of what you said.  Except the end.  You really think there is a 34 year old out that that could be president?  Most presidents have college degrees and even master's or law degrees.  Let's just assume that is 7 years. I don;t think a minimum age is all that bad a thing.

Now - I guess that's my opinion and I could exercises it with my vote...so maybe there shouldn;t be one.  I'm going to have to read up on it and see what the thought process was.

Yes, there are absolutely unbelievable geniuses who would be great at the job who are 34 and under IMO. Like I said, whoever is nominated should be extraordinary. We're not talking about normal people here. Or we shouldn't be, anyway.

I'm not sure "genius" is the only thing that makes a good president.  Experience plays a big factor for me...life experience.  

I know. I edited my post before you replied. I was not suggesting that "genius" in quotation marks was the only thing that makes a good president. As for life experience.... HAAAA HAAAA!!!!! In the context you're using it, life experience as something useful in politics seems to essentially be a MYTH for at least half of the people in politics. Look at what all these politicians with so-called life experience are pulling off! This runs along the same line as those total lies that adults told us when we were kids to make us think that all adults are actually mature and responsible, lol. Now that we're all grown up, we know that is not even close to being the case. I'm certainly not discounting life experience altogether - I'm discounting it as something that is assumed to be a useful thing just because someone is 50 instead of 30. There is a LOT more to it than that, which makes it so younger people should not be discounted just because of it. Life experience can be a detriment as well as an asset... I mean, the more "life experience" one has... the more chances to be corrupt and bitter there are. Not to mention how some older people with life experience have just learned to be overly cautious and resistant to change and innovation. You know what I mean?Hell, I know people my age who are already all the way there, and I'm only 42. Also, there are young people who are just old souls who know better than so many older people. Think about Malala, for example. God knows she'd be a much more valuable leader than many world leaders currently in office, and she's barely out of adolescence. As I said, extraordinary people, no matter the age (aka geniuses, in so many various ways). They exist.

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

cincybearcat said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

PJ_Soul said:

dankind said:

brianlux said:

dankind said:

brianlux said:

Reagan was 69 when he took office.  Trump is 70.  But God forbid we have a 70 year old Democratic old woman run for president.  Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh noooooooooooo!!!

And Reagan's second term was a fucking shitshow, with poor old Nancy changing the goddamn diapers. And we know how Trump's faculties are holding up.

People age differently.  I know or know of people well into there 70's who are sharp, smart as a tack and graced by years of wisdom. 

Some examples:

Wendell Berry:  A well known and respected long time bookseller recently told me, "Wendell Berry [who is 84 years old] is the greatest living writer in America today.  Berry is still producing fine works.

John Muir: Muir was still doing great writing into his 70's

Judi Dench: still doing great work at 83

I know this very well, Brian. But I'm not taking that chance with the leader of the free world, especially when the 25th Amendment was apparently just written for shits and giggles.

I'm just ageist when it comes down to something like this. I own it. I think it's pragmatic more than anything.

Well... it's just ageist. I'm sure sexists think they're being pragmatic too.

Ignoring you once again (or trying to anyway) tagging anything I've written with sexism--apparently, I'm not communicating well, so I'll stop after this--but I'll just ask, where's our dreamy, cool-sock-wearing young-ish person who would have a chance on the presidential ticket (for either party)?

So far, I've heard Trump, Warren, Biden, even Sanders. Holy shit! will those last two even be alive in 2020?

Is Kamala considering? Booker? Hickenlooper? Klobuchar? Cuomo?

Would anyone dare primary Trump? Haley? Sasse? Walker? Flake? Baker? McMaster?

Wow. I have never once thought you're sexist, so I have no clue where you're getting that from. If I do happen to be referencing sexism in reply to your posts a lot, it's not deliberate or targeted in any way, and I'm truly not aware of it ... If that's how it's turning out, well, maybe shit you say warrants it, one way or another?

But in any case, I don't know what you mean by "tagging". I used the comparison because I thought it was apt.

Anyway, I'm not sure how you'd like someone to respond to openly ageist posts. Don't get me wrong, some old people totally aren't fit for office, but if they actually make it far enough to be nominated, it's certainly not because they don't have all their faculties (normally - Trump is the exception to every rule). I think some old people aren't fit for the position just because their views are way outdated because they aren't the type of person who can absorb new ideas and concepts. They can't move with the times. But other older people can do that perfectly well, so it's not their actual age that I'm focusing on. It's the ability to be open to new things and ideas.

Damn, it feels good to be an ageist!

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2019/03/08/too-old-president-science-says-yes/oMgYxC6waKIIyKWuHciJCJ/story.html

Of course, feel free to argue with science. It's very popular these days.

I have never and will never argue against science. What I am arguing is that there are old people who absolutely and completely capable of performing the job well (again, the assumption is that they DO have all their faculties if they get into office). The general decline of old people is a universal truth that nobody ever debated. But what I will argue is that there are old people who are extraordinary enough to properly serve as POTUS (and all POTUSs should be extraordinary... something that many Americans seem to have forgotten). To say that ALL old people should be kept from the position just because they're old, discounting the facts of their actual capabilities, even in the name of science (which is generalized in the context of the article you posted) is 100% ageist. FWIW, I also find it very ageist that there is a minimum age for the position. Again, just like with the old people, there are also young people extraordinary enough to be capable of doing the job well.

I agree with a lot of what you said.  Except the end.  You really think there is a 34 year old out that that could be president?  Most presidents have college degrees and even master's or law degrees.  Let's just assume that is 7 years. I don;t think a minimum age is all that bad a thing.

Now - I guess that's my opinion and I could exercises it with my vote...so maybe there shouldn;t be one.  I'm going to have to read up on it and see what the thought process was.

Yes, there are absolutely unbelievable geniuses who would be great at the job who are 34 and under IMO. Like I said, whoever is nominated should be extraordinary. We're not talking about normal people here. Or we shouldn't be, anyway.

I'm not sure "genius" is the only thing that makes a good president.  Experience plays a big factor for me...life experience.  

I know. I edited my post before you replied. I was not suggesting that "genius" in quotation marks was the only thing that makes a good president. As for life experience.... HAAAA HAAAA!!!!! In the context you're using it, life experience as something useful in politics seems to essentially be a MYTH for at least half of the people in politics. Look at what all these politicians with so-called life experience are pulling off! This runs along the same line as those total lies that adults told us when we were kids to make us think that all adults are actually mature and responsible, lol. Now that we're all grown up, we know that is not even close to being the case. I'm certainly not discounting life experience altogether - I'm discounting it as something that is assumed to be a useful thing just because someone is 50 instead of 30. There is a LOT more to it than that, which makes it so younger people should not be discounted just because of it. Life experience can be a detriment as well as an asset... I mean, the more "life experience" one has... the more chances to be corrupt and bitter there are. Not to mention how some older people with life experience have just learned to be overly cautious and resistant to change and innovation. You know what I mean?Hell, I know people my age who are already all the way there, and I'm only 42. Also, there are young people who are just old souls who know better than so many older people. Think about Malala, for example. God knows she'd be a much more valuable leader than many world leaders currently in office, and she's barely out of adolescence. As I said, extraordinary people, no matter the age (aka geniuses, in so many various ways). They exist.

hahahaha, you know I don;t remember the last post you made that didn't get edited.  I guess I need to wait longer to respond.

Yes, it's a problem! I always realize I have more to say after I hit post... it's like the actual act of clicking "Post Comment" triggers more thoughts in my brain.

Well I’ve already decided I don’t think an age limit is a great idea.  

That said life expectancy has risen around 13 years on average for men from then till now. So in the 1700’s you better get started younger!

I do think the comment regarding the age limit trying to keep a president from basically handing it down to his son is interesting. Since we’ve seen that without the age limit stopping it (though not back to back).

But think for a moment, if Barack has a child that was old enough to run after he left office...you think that Obama would have won? I think yes.