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
If he is in good health at 78 I'd expect him to make it to 82 was my point. Some are sharp as a tack at 85 and others incoherent at 58. Let's judge his performance is my point.
If Biden were to run against someone two years younger whose diet consists of big macs, endless KFC buckets and minimal exercise I'd say in effect Biden is the "younger option."
More importantly let's see how savvy his political skills are. I'd say Warren is sharp on policy but trump gouged her when she released her DNA test and her rebuttal was very weak. This is the type of thing I am hoping Sloppy Joe is good at.
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.
I agree evaluating a candidate's cognitive function is an important factor but concluding whether they are "sharp" based on their age is leaning towards discrimination.
Which is fine because that's what ppl do.
But if alot of democratic voters start judging Sloppy Joe strictly by the number next to his name...
My argument is that is precisely how and why Democrats lose to Republicans on presidential elections.
Almost textbook. (Hope I remember why when my old brain argument gets challenged )
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.
I agree evaluating a candidate's cognitive function is an important factor but concluding whether they are "sharp" based on their age is leaning towards discrimination.
Which is fine because that's what ppl do.
But if alot of democratic voters start judging Sloppy Joe strictly by the number next to his name...
My argument is that is precisely how and why Democrats lose to Republicans on presidential elections.
Almost textbook. (Hope I remember why when my old brain argument gets challenged )
Oh, I agree that Dems do more damage to themselves than the Repubs do to them.
Whether it be purity tests for policy initiatives or saying that there needs to be a fresh new, young face - we shoot ourselves in the foot and help to damage our potential nominees before they get to the general.
Biden is the candidate that Trump is THE most afraid of running against and his insane tweeting can attest to that. Now he has Rudy pestering the Ukranians about stuff that has already had its run through the news back in the Obama presidency ( ). Accusations against his son and ousting a corrupt prosecutor and salacious shit about his kid's romantic life. (I thought we were against PC culture?)
Trump is actively colluding with a foreign country to get dirt on a political opponent - and he's getting away with it, AGAIN. The NYT has already started their articles reminiscent of their email stories that were fed to them by information from Trump associates. Great newspaper, stupid decisions sometimes.
Can Biden make it through a primary where we eat our own? We'll see.
And, as an aside, I was all in for Beto as Senator for Texas. Very impressive. But I just do not see him as ready for primetime and find him to be more hype than substance. (Another Dem voter shiny object).
That said, I would rather Biden get the nomination. Warren is probably the best candidate. But so was Hillary.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin 2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
For those of you that support free tuition, I encourage you to read this article. If you can't see it, I'm happy to paste the text. It's an excellent analysis from a UVA professor who has studied the issue. It better encapsulates the criticism I have levied against it, regarding lack of means testing AND rewarding high earners. It also does a great job of supporting Mayor Pete's well founded criticism as well. I've always believed that the policy, as espoused by Warren and Sanders, is truly a vote attraction strategy for 20 and 30 year olds.
I would think most voters already know what they want. Trump or NotTrump. The percentage who do not already know will make the difference.
54% voted not trump last time and that % will probably be similar this time.
Trump & gop know this and will try to get reelected with the same 2 step strategy as last time:
1. Make sure a moderate is running on the libertarian ticket
2. Destroy the reputation of the Dem nominee so at least 1-2% of dem voters dont vote or vote 3rd party
Does the 54% include any 3rd/4th/write in options from last election?
Yes. Trump got 46% off the vote. He will probably get about the same this time.
Hopefully more people find themselves in the NotTrump camp who did not vote last time...and everyone choosing NotTrump realizes that our system is fucked in the bung and that the only way that NotTrump works is to vote for Geriatric Joe or whomever gets the nod from the Dems. I was fooled once, voting 3rd party in protest, but not again.
I would think most voters already know what they want. Trump or NotTrump. The percentage who do not already know will make the difference.
54% voted not trump last time and that % will probably be similar this time.
Trump & gop know this and will try to get reelected with the same 2 step strategy as last time:
1. Make sure a moderate is running on the libertarian ticket
2. Destroy the reputation of the Dem nominee so at least 1-2% of dem voters dont vote or vote 3rd party
Does the 54% include any 3rd/4th/write in options from last election?
Yes. Trump got 46% off the vote. He will probably get about the same this time.
Hopefully more people find themselves in the NotTrump camp who did not vote last time...and everyone choosing NotTrump realizes that our system is fucked in the bung and that the only way that NotTrump works is to vote for Geriatric Joe or whomever gets the nod from the Dems. I was fooled once, voting 3rd party in protest, but not again.
#MakeItCount
it's hard to see how he will GAIN votes from last time. I mean who watching this the past 2 years is going to move from independent or Hillary to team Trump? i just can't see how he gains votes. Although that mostly matters in a few states.
I would think most voters already know what they want. Trump or NotTrump. The percentage who do not already know will make the difference.
54% voted not trump last time and that % will probably be similar this time.
Trump & gop know this and will try to get reelected with the same 2 step strategy as last time:
1. Make sure a moderate is running on the libertarian ticket
2. Destroy the reputation of the Dem nominee so at least 1-2% of dem voters dont vote or vote 3rd party
Does the 54% include any 3rd/4th/write in options from last election?
Yes. Trump got 46% off the vote. He will probably get about the same this time.
Hopefully more people find themselves in the NotTrump camp who did not vote last time...and everyone choosing NotTrump realizes that our system is fucked in the bung and that the only way that NotTrump works is to vote for Geriatric Joe or whomever gets the nod from the Dems. I was fooled once, voting 3rd party in protest, but not again.
#MakeItCount
it's hard to see how he will GAIN votes from last time. I mean who watching this the past 2 years is going to move from independent or Hillary to team Trump? i just can't see how he gains votes. Although that mostly matters in a few states.
The basic economic numbers are good. If that holds, he could win a majority of votes.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin 2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
I would think most voters already know what they want. Trump or NotTrump. The percentage who do not already know will make the difference.
54% voted not trump last time and that % will probably be similar this time.
Trump & gop know this and will try to get reelected with the same 2 step strategy as last time:
1. Make sure a moderate is running on the libertarian ticket
2. Destroy the reputation of the Dem nominee so at least 1-2% of dem voters dont vote or vote 3rd party
Does the 54% include any 3rd/4th/write in options from last election?
Yes. Trump got 46% off the vote. He will probably get about the same this time.
Hopefully more people find themselves in the NotTrump camp who did not vote last time...and everyone choosing NotTrump realizes that our system is fucked in the bung and that the only way that NotTrump works is to vote for Geriatric Joe or whomever gets the nod from the Dems. I was fooled once, voting 3rd party in protest, but not again.
#MakeItCount
it's hard to see how he will GAIN votes from last time. I mean who watching this the past 2 years is going to move from independent or Hillary to team Trump? i just can't see how he gains votes. Although that mostly matters in a few states.
The basic economic numbers are good. If that holds, he could win a majority of votes.
Not a chance in the world he wins a majority. It's hard enough for a popular person to do that.
I think the fix is in for Biden for the democratic nomination. Must have got the green light promise from the party if he entered the race. He isn’t even worried about going after his immediate opponents.
I think the fix is in for Biden for the democratic nomination. Must have got the green light promise from the party if he entered the race. He isn’t even worried about going after his immediate opponents.
“The fix?” Because he’s leading in the polls, was VP for 8 years, had a distinguished career as a senator and doesn’t believe everything should be “free?” That fix?
I think the fix is in for Biden for the democratic nomination. Must have got the green light promise from the party if he entered the race. He isn’t even worried about going after his immediate opponents.
I think the fix is in for Biden for the democratic nomination. Must have got the green light promise from the party if he entered the race. He isn’t even worried about going after his immediate opponents.
The democrats would never do that, would they...
Maybe Donna what's her name, who did it, wrote a book , made millions
I think the fix is in for Biden for the democratic nomination. Must have got the green light promise from the party if he entered the race. He isn’t even worried about going after his immediate opponents.
The democrats would never do that, would they...
Except it doesn't make a bit of logical sense. Are the DNC mind controlling people who answer phones for polls? That's some excellent technology. Or maybe the DNC has secretly purchased all the polling companies for the express purpose of releasing false polls. That way the sheeple will want to vote for the winners and will go with Joe, even though they really want Yang. It's so diabolical in its brilliance.
Comments
If he is in good health at 78 I'd expect him to make it to 82 was my point. Some are sharp as a tack at 85 and others incoherent at 58. Let's judge his performance is my point.
If Biden were to run against someone two years younger whose diet consists of big macs, endless KFC buckets and minimal exercise I'd say in effect Biden is the "younger option."
More importantly let's see how savvy his political skills are. I'd say Warren is sharp on policy but trump gouged her when she released her DNA test and her rebuttal was very weak. This is the type of thing I am hoping Sloppy Joe is good at.
I agree evaluating a candidate's cognitive function is an important factor but concluding whether they are "sharp" based on their age is leaning towards discrimination.
Which is fine because that's what ppl do.
But if alot of democratic voters start judging Sloppy Joe strictly by the number next to his name...
My argument is that is precisely how and why Democrats lose to Republicans on presidential elections.
Almost textbook. (Hope I remember why when my old brain argument gets challenged
Whether it be purity tests for policy initiatives or saying that there needs to be a fresh new, young face - we shoot ourselves in the foot and help to damage our potential nominees before they get to the general.
Biden is the candidate that Trump is THE most afraid of running against and his insane tweeting can attest to that. Now he has Rudy pestering the Ukranians about stuff that has already had its run through the news back in the Obama presidency (
Trump is actively colluding with a foreign country to get dirt on a political opponent - and he's getting away with it, AGAIN. The NYT has already started their articles reminiscent of their email stories that were fed to them by information from Trump associates. Great newspaper, stupid decisions sometimes.
Can Biden make it through a primary where we eat our own? We'll see.
And, as an aside, I was all in for Beto as Senator for Texas. Very impressive. But I just do not see him as ready for primetime and find him to be more hype than substance. (Another Dem voter shiny object).
I like 20+ choices. It forces the candidates like Beto or Gillibrand to stand out and get noticed and will force Biden to be on his game (hopefully)
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Sorry, he is 78 his mind is not getting sharper...
If he is POTUS he will need to be waken from his naps...lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORKuZXo_sLk
The percentage who do not already know will make the difference.
54% voted not trump last time and that % will probably be similar this time.
Trump & gop know this and will try to get reelected with the same 2 step strategy as last time:
1. Make sure a moderate is running on the libertarian ticket
2. Destroy the reputation of the Dem nominee so at least 1-2% of dem voters dont vote or vote 3rd party
That said, I would rather Biden get the nomination. Warren is probably the best candidate. But so was Hillary.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/free-tuition-is-the-opposite-of-progressive-policymaking/2019/05/03/4767edc8-6c1b-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html?utm_term=.b19a01d96701
Yes. Trump got 46% off the vote. He will probably get about the same this time.
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley
Biden surging..
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/442310-joe-biden
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Maybe Donna what's her name, who did it, wrote a book , made millions