159
Biden turns 81 as questions about age continue to dominate 2024 race
(abcnews.go.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2023
159 points (85.0% liked)
politics
19120 readers
2067 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You would have to be a fool to think Biden or Trump are victims of ageism.
Neither of them have known a moment of real struggle in their lives, to put them in the same group as seniors who can't find employment and struggle to put food on their plates and roofs over their heads is laughable and either poorly thought out or outright disingenuous.
Biden, Trump, McConnell, Pelosi, all these monsters are the very architects of the problems seniors face either through their actions or inaction.
You're purposely ignoring the fact that you called people out on the basis of their age, and then said "Ageism doesn't have a damn thing to do with it."
The person in command of the largest conventional and nuclear capable military on the planet shouldn't be so old that they forget why they're standing at a podium addressing the masses.
The context matters here. This isn't like putting grandma in a home to rob her of her autonomy when she needs support, these are the people making the very policies that put people in the financial hardships that make that situation commonplace.
No one in these seats of power is suffering from ageism, it would be mad to think so.
So disqualify candidates on the basis of their mental acuity, not on age.
Should the minimum age to qualify for presidency be removed?
If the aim for a minimum age is to ensure that a person has at least a certain amount of life experience to qualify for office, that is directly related to age, and so a minimum age would be an appropriate measure.
Still waiting for you to acknowledge
It's bizarre to recognize that there should be a minimum age for the presidency while saying that its ageist to say that Biden, Trump, etc are too damn old to be president.
They are both clearly in cognitive decline, something that naturally happens with age. Neither belong anywhere near a seat of power. And I'm not suggesting some age limit to be placed on the presidency, simply that it's clearly evident the candidates available to us are too old to be there.
Biden and Trump aren't normal people. They're political oligarchs, some of the wealthiest and most powerful individuals on the planet. They don't suffer things like ageism and other biases in the same way as normal people. Their wealth and power will shield them from all of the problems they help create during the entiries of their lives and after. Their day to day lives are so wildly alienated from a normal existence in America. Pretending like they are victims of ageism is patently absurd and only aids in perpetuating a system of power that utterly disregards the needs of the common person.
Buddy, it doesn't work like that for them. Pretending they're people just like you and me with similar problems and similar lives ain't helping.
But they sure got you fooled.
I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about you.
The thread ain't about me, it's about the candidates. They ain't your grandpa, they arm police officers with military equipment and authorize cruise missile attacks on civilians
Good luck, pal. If you're struggling to understand the differences here, you'll need it.
You started this thread by calling them "too damn old" and "geriatric," then said "Ageism doesn't have a damn thing to do with it."
I pointed out the obvious contradiction there, and you continue to actively ignore it.