To swing back around to the original topic, in the end the talk about age just ends up being a proxy for complaints about cognitive function or dissatisfaction with who ends up being on the ballot. In the first case it's a poor substitute for actually having to engage with the real issue. And in the second it's not even worth taking seriously.
But it's why the discussion always leads to where we see it now.
shryke on
+7
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
Biden shouldn’t be running because it is extremely clear that his cognitive faculties are taking a hit from his age
How is that extremely clear?
Like, let's make the actual subtext of this entire thread text please because the dancing around is silly.
Because he repeatedly, publicly, demonstrates that he is physically and mentally deteriorating in the manner that is typical of your average eight decades old American man, with the added stressors of what is infamously one of the most stressful jobs in the country.
I cannot think of a single appearance in the last year or two where he did not seem utterly exhausted, and that exhaustion is increasing in severity with each appearance.
Joe Biden is not a miracle man who is immune to becoming old, and the physical and mental decline that comes along with that, and the repeated insistence that this is not a problem is rapidly becoming a Naked King moment for the Democrats.
No, actual proof Lanz. Show me something other then vague insinuations. Cause the people who actually deal with him have all said he's fine from anything I've read. And I've seen no repeated public demonstrations.
I am not going to go grabbing multiple videos from the past three months of Biden struggling to speak, repeatedly pausing for words and phrasing in a way that did not bother the younger firebrand Biden of forty years ago, just because you are committed to not seeing what is present and are willing and prepared to say whatever I find does not constitute proof of what I am saying.
Which is ultimately the problem at hand: a partisan coalition both of politicians and their fans who willingly excuse what is obvious to many, not too unlike the partisan divides between Republican supporters and Democrat supporters.
Right, so you aren't actually going to show any proof of this claim. You cannot actually produce evidence of what you claim is repeated and obvious. Are the sources you are basing this on too embarrassing or something? This isn't a hard request. Give us something if it's so obvious and frequent.
No
In that case, I declare that Biden in 2024 is the sharpest politician to ever hold the oval office, and only gets sharper with age. I submit as proof that yuh-huuuuuh.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+12
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Except the major push for this narrative came after a government report to the contrary of this. Like the reason this is whipping up is because an official fuckin record noted a decline in his mental acuity.
This is bullshit and you should know better than to spread it
The actual quote was a speculation as to what Biden might act like if he was charged with a crime, by a Federalist Society-affiliated special prosecutor* who was bitter that his fishing expedition couldn’t find anything criminal to charge, but did know that every word in his report (including his evidence-free editorializing about a supposed decline in Biden’s mental acuity would be picked up and exploited by bad-faith actors.
*who should never have been appointed but that’s a whole other issue
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+11
Options
ElJeffeRoaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPAMod Emeritus
edited February 14
Levity aside, I do think it's important to note that "not as sharp as he was 20 years ago" is not the same as "not sharp enough for the office".
Ten years ago, my memory was impeccable. Today it is less impeccable. It's not bad, it doesn't in any way make me incapable of doing my job, but yeah, time takes a toll.
Point being, the simple fact that maybe Biden 2024 isn't the same as Biden 2016 isn't super meaningful in itself.
And yeah, to be convinced that he's currently senile is going to take more than a media-made supercut of the guy with a well documented stutter tripping over his words or pausing before answering.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Biden shouldn’t be running because it is extremely clear that his cognitive faculties are taking a hit from his age
How is that extremely clear?
Like, let's make the actual subtext of this entire thread text please because the dancing around is silly.
Because he repeatedly, publicly, demonstrates that he is physically and mentally deteriorating in the manner that is typical of your average eight decades old American man, with the added stressors of what is infamously one of the most stressful jobs in the country.
I cannot think of a single appearance in the last year or two where he did not seem utterly exhausted, and that exhaustion is increasing in severity with each appearance.
Joe Biden is not a miracle man who is immune to becoming old, and the physical and mental decline that comes along with that, and the repeated insistence that this is not a problem is rapidly becoming a Naked King moment for the Democrats.
No, actual proof Lanz. Show me something other then vague insinuations. Cause the people who actually deal with him have all said he's fine from anything I've read. And I've seen no repeated public demonstrations.
I am not going to go grabbing multiple videos from the past three months of Biden struggling to speak, repeatedly pausing for words and phrasing in a way that did not bother the younger firebrand Biden of forty years ago, just because you are committed to not seeing what is present and are willing and prepared to say whatever I find does not constitute proof of what I am saying.
Which is ultimately the problem at hand: a partisan coalition both of politicians and their fans who willingly excuse what is obvious to many, not too unlike the partisan divides between Republican supporters and Democrat supporters.
I wish the options weren't all so godddamned old but I suppose there's just failures at all levels leading there; if old people were so shit then why haven't the new out-competed them (a la Obama telling the DNC he didn't need their fundraising apparatus)
Is this a uniquely American problem? The EU leaders I'm familiar with are old but not 70+
Yes, it's a weirdly American thing and has been for a generation at least. "Too old to be a politician here and not old enough to be a politician in America" is something a couple of statesmen this side of the Atlantic have quoted, but I'm not sure who is the original source.
I think probably the biggest reason why this is the case is that it is generational, as soon as the old guys don't leave or hang on until it's 'their turn', they're all eating into the time of the politicians below them who are more or less replaced at the same rate.
If you're taking the US as the example here, death rates double per 10K people once you hit the 45-55 boundary, and then double ever 10 years after that. But if those top spots are held and competed for by a group of 75-85 year olds over ten years - using UK numbers, only 10% would be expected to die in any given year so the top job could easily stay within that group before passing to a younger 75 year old. 65 to 75? About 1% per year will die off, and yeah - the laws of compound interest here will come into play but the number of top jobs we're talking about is very small.
So because US politicians are so abnormally old, and they never retire because the only way to get the top jobs is to never retire, there isn't much space for the younger future leaders. You'll get the odd Obama jumping the queue in exceptional times, but if your systems take so long and so much cash to nominate a leader that the incumbent advantage is as strong as it is, and expensive as it is so that it's very risky to not put your money behind a known quantity - septuagenarians plus is what you get.
The weak party system is also to blame, as that is why it costs so much. Nationwide, year-long primaries rather than the party itself deciding means that any insurgent candidate needs to have national level funding almost baked in at the start in a system that favours establishment candidates.
If candidates were determined at the conventions, and electioneering was more strictly limited to a shorter period of time, then that would open up the playing field to a lot more groups and activists to get a step on the ground floor and mean that the main determining factor at the leadership contests themselves would be more vision and drive. More townhall type stuff and debates rather than stump speeches feels like it would level the playing field between the well funded older politicians and the hot up and coming firebrands as the main Party events are not funded by the individual candidates.
Give the Parties more control over who represents them, don't use the Primary system as a dry run of the Presidential system and you'll see younger candidates. The current primary system doesn't really allow for insurgent candidates, it's just a slow consensus building exercise, marketing run and test bed for the Presidential system. Want to supplant the obvious candidate? You've got three years to convince the people you'd work with to do so before we ask the general populace to pick between the Parties. If you can't convince your own side that you'd be better over 3-7 years then don't waste everyone else's time just ahead of an election, but doing that is going to be a lot cheaper than what you're doing now.
TLDR: The US's seemingly unique weak party system means that you need name recognition and a national funding network to even consider a serious run for President. Which then caps the top levels of political office as people can't move out but instead are the only people seemingly poised to have another go at it even after 4-8 years.
I wish the options weren't all so godddamned old but I suppose there's just failures at all levels leading there; if old people were so shit then why haven't the new out-competed them (a la Obama telling the DNC he didn't need their fundraising apparatus)
Is this a uniquely American problem? The EU leaders I'm familiar with are old but not 70+
Yes, it's a weirdly American thing and has been for a generation at least. "Too old to be a politician here and not old enough to be a politician in America" is something a couple of statesmen this side of the Atlantic have quoted, but I'm not sure who is the original source.
I think probably the biggest reason why this is the case is that it is generational, as soon as the old guys don't leave or hang on until it's 'their turn', they're all eating into the time of the politicians below them who are more or less replaced at the same rate.
If you're taking the US as the example here, death rates double per 10K people once you hit the 45-55 boundary, and then double ever 10 years after that. But if those top spots are held and competed for by a group of 75-85 year olds over ten years - using UK numbers, only 10% would be expected to die in any given year so the top job could easily stay within that group before passing to a younger 75 year old. 65 to 75? About 1% per year will die off, and yeah - the laws of compound interest here will come into play but the number of top jobs we're talking about is very small.
So because US politicians are so abnormally old, and they never retire because the only way to get the top jobs is to never retire, there isn't much space for the younger future leaders. You'll get the odd Obama jumping the queue in exceptional times, but if your systems take so long and so much cash to nominate a leader that the incumbent advantage is as strong as it is, and expensive as it is so that it's very risky to not put your money behind a known quantity - septuagenarians plus is what you get.
The weak party system is also to blame, as that is why it costs so much. Nationwide, year-long primaries rather than the party itself deciding means that any insurgent candidate needs to have national level funding almost baked in at the start in a system that favours establishment candidates.
If candidates were determined at the conventions, and electioneering was more strictly limited to a shorter period of time, then that would open up the playing field to a lot more groups and activists to get a step on the ground floor and mean that the main determining factor at the leadership contests themselves would be more vision and drive. More townhall type stuff and debates rather than stump speeches feels like it would level the playing field between the well funded older politicians and the hot up and coming firebrands as the main Party events are not funded by the individual candidates.
Give the Parties more control over who represents them, don't use the Primary system as a dry run of the Presidential system and you'll see younger candidates. The current primary system doesn't really allow for insurgent candidates, it's just a slow consensus building exercise, marketing run and test bed for the Presidential system. Want to supplant the obvious candidate? You've got three years to convince the people you'd work with to do so before we ask the general populace to pick between the Parties. If you can't convince your own side that you'd be better over 3-7 years then don't waste everyone else's time just ahead of an election, but doing that is going to be a lot cheaper than what you're doing now.
Yeah. I have some suspicion (but no proof) that part of what happens in the US is that the weak party structure means powerful politicians are much more of an individual brand and thus can keep getting elected easier with no one able to stop them and are also insulated from the backstabbing that stronger parties usually engage in to shuffle their elder statesman off the political coil.
+2
Options
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I wish the options weren't all so godddamned old but I suppose there's just failures at all levels leading there; if old people were so shit then why haven't the new out-competed them (a la Obama telling the DNC he didn't need their fundraising apparatus)
Is this a uniquely American problem? The EU leaders I'm familiar with are old but not 70+
Yes, it's a weirdly American thing and has been for a generation at least. "Too old to be a politician here and not old enough to be a politician in America" is something a couple of statesmen this side of the Atlantic have quoted, but I'm not sure who is the original source.
I think probably the biggest reason why this is the case is that it is generational, as soon as the old guys don't leave or hang on until it's 'their turn', they're all eating into the time of the politicians below them who are more or less replaced at the same rate.
If you're taking the US as the example here, death rates double per 10K people once you hit the 45-55 boundary, and then double ever 10 years after that. But if those top spots are held and competed for by a group of 75-85 year olds over ten years - using UK numbers, only 10% would be expected to die in any given year so the top job could easily stay within that group before passing to a younger 75 year old. 65 to 75? About 1% per year will die off, and yeah - the laws of compound interest here will come into play but the number of top jobs we're talking about is very small.
So because US politicians are so abnormally old, and they never retire because the only way to get the top jobs is to never retire, there isn't much space for the younger future leaders. You'll get the odd Obama jumping the queue in exceptional times, but if your systems take so long and so much cash to nominate a leader that the incumbent advantage is as strong as it is, and expensive as it is so that it's very risky to not put your money behind a known quantity - septuagenarians plus is what you get.
The weak party system is also to blame, as that is why it costs so much. Nationwide, year-long primaries rather than the party itself deciding means that any insurgent candidate needs to have national level funding almost baked in at the start in a system that favours establishment candidates.
If candidates were determined at the conventions, and electioneering was more strictly limited to a shorter period of time, then that would open up the playing field to a lot more groups and activists to get a step on the ground floor and mean that the main determining factor at the leadership contests themselves would be more vision and drive. More townhall type stuff and debates rather than stump speeches feels like it would level the playing field between the well funded older politicians and the hot up and coming firebrands as the main Party events are not funded by the individual candidates.
Give the Parties more control over who represents them, don't use the Primary system as a dry run of the Presidential system and you'll see younger candidates. The current primary system doesn't really allow for insurgent candidates, it's just a slow consensus building exercise, marketing run and test bed for the Presidential system. Want to supplant the obvious candidate? You've got three years to convince the people you'd work with to do so before we ask the general populace to pick between the Parties. If you can't convince your own side that you'd be better over 3-7 years then don't waste everyone else's time just ahead of an election, but doing that is going to be a lot cheaper than what you're doing now.
Yeah. I have some suspicion (but no proof) that part of what happens in the US is that the weak party structure means powerful politicians are much more of an individual brand and thus can keep getting elected easier with no one able to stop them and are also insulated from the backstabbing that stronger parties usually engage in to shuffle their elder statesman off the political coil.
This 100%
Despite the assertions of many in this thread the parties are incredibly weak in the US, at least in comparison to other countries. There is no “three line whip” here.
It’s why politicians who can count are so valuable.
Levity aside, I do think it's important to note that "not as sharp as he was 20 years ago" is not the same as "not sharp enough for the office".
Ten years ago, my memory was impeccable. Today it is less impeccable. It's not bad, it doesn't in any way make me incapable of doing my job, but yeah, time takes a toll.
Point being, the simple fact that maybe Biden 2024 isn't the same as Biden 2016 isn't super meaningful in itself.
And yeah, to be convinced that he's currently senile is going to take more than a media-made supercut of the guy with a well documented stutter tripping over his words or pausing before answering.
Yup, this is where you run into situations where experience can compensate for age. Most older athletes aren't as quick / strong / fit as they were when they were young, and age eventually catches up, but knowledge and experience and developing skills can compensate for a lot.
Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity where simple experience and a few minutes of analysis will get to the same or better conclusion.
Age related decline is a real thing, for sure. But I'm not convinced any of the hard cutoff age stuff solves any problems at all. And there are definitely a lot of rehash 2016 / 2020 primary veefs that are using age as 'concerns' as stalking horses.
+4
Options
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
at least if there was a cognitive decline that would help explain his absolute dreadful stance on what's happening in gaza and his direct actions relating to it (supplying weapons like tank shells as well as constant ceasefire vetos)
but i think the truth is he just doesnt give a fuck about what's happening to the Palestinian people and that's been his way of thinking for decades
another reason why the out of touch, ignorant and legitimately harmful older generation should not be allowed to stay in power
I wish the options weren't all so godddamned old but I suppose there's just failures at all levels leading there; if old people were so shit then why haven't the new out-competed them (a la Obama telling the DNC he didn't need their fundraising apparatus)
Is this a uniquely American problem? The EU leaders I'm familiar with are old but not 70+
Yes, it's a weirdly American thing and has been for a generation at least. "Too old to be a politician here and not old enough to be a politician in America" is something a couple of statesmen this side of the Atlantic have quoted, but I'm not sure who is the original source.
I think probably the biggest reason why this is the case is that it is generational, as soon as the old guys don't leave or hang on until it's 'their turn', they're all eating into the time of the politicians below them who are more or less replaced at the same rate.
If you're taking the US as the example here, death rates double per 10K people once you hit the 45-55 boundary, and then double ever 10 years after that. But if those top spots are held and competed for by a group of 75-85 year olds over ten years - using UK numbers, only 10% would be expected to die in any given year so the top job could easily stay within that group before passing to a younger 75 year old. 65 to 75? About 1% per year will die off, and yeah - the laws of compound interest here will come into play but the number of top jobs we're talking about is very small.
So because US politicians are so abnormally old, and they never retire because the only way to get the top jobs is to never retire, there isn't much space for the younger future leaders. You'll get the odd Obama jumping the queue in exceptional times, but if your systems take so long and so much cash to nominate a leader that the incumbent advantage is as strong as it is, and expensive as it is so that it's very risky to not put your money behind a known quantity - septuagenarians plus is what you get.
The weak party system is also to blame, as that is why it costs so much. Nationwide, year-long primaries rather than the party itself deciding means that any insurgent candidate needs to have national level funding almost baked in at the start in a system that favours establishment candidates.
If candidates were determined at the conventions, and electioneering was more strictly limited to a shorter period of time, then that would open up the playing field to a lot more groups and activists to get a step on the ground floor and mean that the main determining factor at the leadership contests themselves would be more vision and drive. More townhall type stuff and debates rather than stump speeches feels like it would level the playing field between the well funded older politicians and the hot up and coming firebrands as the main Party events are not funded by the individual candidates.
Give the Parties more control over who represents them, don't use the Primary system as a dry run of the Presidential system and you'll see younger candidates. The current primary system doesn't really allow for insurgent candidates, it's just a slow consensus building exercise, marketing run and test bed for the Presidential system. Want to supplant the obvious candidate? You've got three years to convince the people you'd work with to do so before we ask the general populace to pick between the Parties. If you can't convince your own side that you'd be better over 3-7 years then don't waste everyone else's time just ahead of an election, but doing that is going to be a lot cheaper than what you're doing now.
Yeah. I have some suspicion (but no proof) that part of what happens in the US is that the weak party structure means powerful politicians are much more of an individual brand and thus can keep getting elected easier with no one able to stop them and are also insulated from the backstabbing that stronger parties usually engage in to shuffle their elder statesman off the political coil.
You do have to be a bit careful about the natural replacement process. Don't want to accidentally anger Aline Chrétien with it, and get four more years.
Biden shouldn’t be running because it is extremely clear that his cognitive faculties are taking a hit from his age
How is that extremely clear?
Like, let's make the actual subtext of this entire thread text please because the dancing around is silly.
Because he repeatedly, publicly, demonstrates that he is physically and mentally deteriorating in the manner that is typical of your average eight decades old American man, with the added stressors of what is infamously one of the most stressful jobs in the country.
I cannot think of a single appearance in the last year or two where he did not seem utterly exhausted, and that exhaustion is increasing in severity with each appearance.
Joe Biden is not a miracle man who is immune to becoming old, and the physical and mental decline that comes along with that, and the repeated insistence that this is not a problem is rapidly becoming a Naked King moment for the Democrats.
No, actual proof Lanz. Show me something other then vague insinuations. Cause the people who actually deal with him have all said he's fine from anything I've read. And I've seen no repeated public demonstrations.
I am not going to go grabbing multiple videos from the past three months of Biden struggling to speak, repeatedly pausing for words and phrasing in a way that did not bother the younger firebrand Biden of forty years ago, just because you are committed to not seeing what is present and are willing and prepared to say whatever I find does not constitute proof of what I am saying.
Which is ultimately the problem at hand: a partisan coalition both of politicians and their fans who willingly excuse what is obvious to many, not too unlike the partisan divides between Republican supporters and Democrat supporters.
Levity aside, I do think it's important to note that "not as sharp as he was 20 years ago" is not the same as "not sharp enough for the office".
Ten years ago, my memory was impeccable. Today it is less impeccable. It's not bad, it doesn't in any way make me incapable of doing my job, but yeah, time takes a toll.
Point being, the simple fact that maybe Biden 2024 isn't the same as Biden 2016 isn't super meaningful in itself.
And yeah, to be convinced that he's currently senile is going to take more than a media-made supercut of the guy with a well documented stutter tripping over his words or pausing before answering.
Yup, this is where you run into situations where experience can compensate for age. Most older athletes aren't as quick / strong / fit as they were when they were young, and age eventually catches up, but knowledge and experience and developing skills can compensate for a lot.
Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity where simple experience and a few minutes of analysis will get to the same or better conclusion.
Age related decline is a real thing, for sure. But I'm not convinced any of the hard cutoff age stuff solves any problems at all. And there are definitely a lot of rehash 2016 / 2020 primary veefs that are using age as 'concerns' as stalking horses.
Just some good ol’ boys who know each other and know how things are done
Levity aside, I do think it's important to note that "not as sharp as he was 20 years ago" is not the same as "not sharp enough for the office".
Ten years ago, my memory was impeccable. Today it is less impeccable. It's not bad, it doesn't in any way make me incapable of doing my job, but yeah, time takes a toll.
Point being, the simple fact that maybe Biden 2024 isn't the same as Biden 2016 isn't super meaningful in itself.
And yeah, to be convinced that he's currently senile is going to take more than a media-made supercut of the guy with a well documented stutter tripping over his words or pausing before answering.
Yup, this is where you run into situations where experience can compensate for age. Most older athletes aren't as quick / strong / fit as they were when they were young, and age eventually catches up, but knowledge and experience and developing skills can compensate for a lot.
Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity where simple experience and a few minutes of analysis will get to the same or better conclusion.
Age related decline is a real thing, for sure. But I'm not convinced any of the hard cutoff age stuff solves any problems at all. And there are definitely a lot of rehash 2016 / 2020 primary veefs that are using age as 'concerns' as stalking horses.
Just some good ol’ boys who know each other and know how things are done
I'd say if you don't think interpersonal relationships and the depths of those relationships are important in accomplishing things in any organization I'd say you are naive.
Or someone who runs into assholes all day every day and can't figure out why you can't accomplish anything you want.
+16
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
There is a famous quote about where if everyone you meet is an asshole…
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Levity aside, I do think it's important to note that "not as sharp as he was 20 years ago" is not the same as "not sharp enough for the office".
Ten years ago, my memory was impeccable. Today it is less impeccable. It's not bad, it doesn't in any way make me incapable of doing my job, but yeah, time takes a toll.
Point being, the simple fact that maybe Biden 2024 isn't the same as Biden 2016 isn't super meaningful in itself.
And yeah, to be convinced that he's currently senile is going to take more than a media-made supercut of the guy with a well documented stutter tripping over his words or pausing before answering.
Yup, this is where you run into situations where experience can compensate for age. Most older athletes aren't as quick / strong / fit as they were when they were young, and age eventually catches up, but knowledge and experience and developing skills can compensate for a lot.
Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity where simple experience and a few minutes of analysis will get to the same or better conclusion.
Age related decline is a real thing, for sure. But I'm not convinced any of the hard cutoff age stuff solves any problems at all. And there are definitely a lot of rehash 2016 / 2020 primary veefs that are using age as 'concerns' as stalking horses.
Just some good ol’ boys who know each other and know how things are done
I'd say if you don't think interpersonal relationships and the depths of those relationships are important in accomplishing things in any organization I'd say you are naive.
Or someone who runs into assholes all day every day and can't figure out why you can't accomplish anything you want.
Or people used to dealing with a lot of moving parts, which isolated elders at the top are not. There's too much focus on the individual here as whether that candidate is the right person for the job due to their innate abilities, which if you're not having them regularly interact with the rest of the real world isn't really going to matter.
Billionaires can billionaire pretty well even whilst potentially dead. It's a lot harder to be involved in the activist and constituent worlds without being part of it.
Biden shouldn’t be running because it is extremely clear that his cognitive faculties are taking a hit from his age
How is that extremely clear?
Like, let's make the actual subtext of this entire thread text please because the dancing around is silly.
Because he repeatedly, publicly, demonstrates that he is physically and mentally deteriorating in the manner that is typical of your average eight decades old American man, with the added stressors of what is infamously one of the most stressful jobs in the country.
I cannot think of a single appearance in the last year or two where he did not seem utterly exhausted, and that exhaustion is increasing in severity with each appearance.
Joe Biden is not a miracle man who is immune to becoming old, and the physical and mental decline that comes along with that, and the repeated insistence that this is not a problem is rapidly becoming a Naked King moment for the Democrats.
No, actual proof Lanz. Show me something other then vague insinuations. Cause the people who actually deal with him have all said he's fine from anything I've read. And I've seen no repeated public demonstrations.
I am not going to go grabbing multiple videos from the past three months of Biden struggling to speak, repeatedly pausing for words and phrasing in a way that did not bother the younger firebrand Biden of forty years ago, just because you are committed to not seeing what is present and are willing and prepared to say whatever I find does not constitute proof of what I am saying.
Which is ultimately the problem at hand: a partisan coalition both of politicians and their fans who willingly excuse what is obvious to many, not too unlike the partisan divides between Republican supporters and Democrat supporters.
Levity aside, I do think it's important to note that "not as sharp as he was 20 years ago" is not the same as "not sharp enough for the office".
Ten years ago, my memory was impeccable. Today it is less impeccable. It's not bad, it doesn't in any way make me incapable of doing my job, but yeah, time takes a toll.
Point being, the simple fact that maybe Biden 2024 isn't the same as Biden 2016 isn't super meaningful in itself.
And yeah, to be convinced that he's currently senile is going to take more than a media-made supercut of the guy with a well documented stutter tripping over his words or pausing before answering.
Yup, this is where you run into situations where experience can compensate for age. Most older athletes aren't as quick / strong / fit as they were when they were young, and age eventually catches up, but knowledge and experience and developing skills can compensate for a lot.
Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity where simple experience and a few minutes of analysis will get to the same or better conclusion.
Age related decline is a real thing, for sure. But I'm not convinced any of the hard cutoff age stuff solves any problems at all. And there are definitely a lot of rehash 2016 / 2020 primary veefs that are using age as 'concerns' as stalking horses.
Just some good ol’ boys who know each other and know how things are done
Are you seriously coming out against... good working relationships?
Is working well with your peers a sinister tool of our capitalist overlords?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+5
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Levity aside, I do think it's important to note that "not as sharp as he was 20 years ago" is not the same as "not sharp enough for the office".
Ten years ago, my memory was impeccable. Today it is less impeccable. It's not bad, it doesn't in any way make me incapable of doing my job, but yeah, time takes a toll.
Point being, the simple fact that maybe Biden 2024 isn't the same as Biden 2016 isn't super meaningful in itself.
And yeah, to be convinced that he's currently senile is going to take more than a media-made supercut of the guy with a well documented stutter tripping over his words or pausing before answering.
Yup, this is where you run into situations where experience can compensate for age. Most older athletes aren't as quick / strong / fit as they were when they were young, and age eventually catches up, but knowledge and experience and developing skills can compensate for a lot.
Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity where simple experience and a few minutes of analysis will get to the same or better conclusion.
Age related decline is a real thing, for sure. But I'm not convinced any of the hard cutoff age stuff solves any problems at all. And there are definitely a lot of rehash 2016 / 2020 primary veefs that are using age as 'concerns' as stalking horses.
Just some good ol’ boys who know each other and know how things are done
Are you seriously coming out against... good working relationships?
Is working well with your peers a sinister tool of our capitalist overlords?
Levity aside, I do think it's important to note that "not as sharp as he was 20 years ago" is not the same as "not sharp enough for the office".
Ten years ago, my memory was impeccable. Today it is less impeccable. It's not bad, it doesn't in any way make me incapable of doing my job, but yeah, time takes a toll.
Point being, the simple fact that maybe Biden 2024 isn't the same as Biden 2016 isn't super meaningful in itself.
And yeah, to be convinced that he's currently senile is going to take more than a media-made supercut of the guy with a well documented stutter tripping over his words or pausing before answering.
Yup, this is where you run into situations where experience can compensate for age. Most older athletes aren't as quick / strong / fit as they were when they were young, and age eventually catches up, but knowledge and experience and developing skills can compensate for a lot.
Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity where simple experience and a few minutes of analysis will get to the same or better conclusion.
Age related decline is a real thing, for sure. But I'm not convinced any of the hard cutoff age stuff solves any problems at all. And there are definitely a lot of rehash 2016 / 2020 primary veefs that are using age as 'concerns' as stalking horses.
Just some good ol’ boys who know each other and know how things are done
I'd say if you don't think interpersonal relationships and the depths of those relationships are important in accomplishing things in any organization I'd say you are naive.
Or someone who runs into assholes all day every day and can't figure out why you can't accomplish anything you want.
I think this philosophy of politics is a recipe for cronyism and corruption, particularly as leveled as a defense of “why we should keep a bunch of the same people in office for decades at a time,” and I think greatly contributes to the way that our government, particularly the legislature, functions less as a sound governing body and more the nation’s most elite country club.
While relationships are important, they should be the larger, collective relationships between nations and peoples, not the specific interpersonal relationships between representatives, and new representatives should be able to forge new relationships with each other based on the larger interconnectedness of nations.
Biden shouldn’t be running because it is extremely clear that his cognitive faculties are taking a hit from his age
How is that extremely clear?
Like, let's make the actual subtext of this entire thread text please because the dancing around is silly.
Because he repeatedly, publicly, demonstrates that he is physically and mentally deteriorating in the manner that is typical of your average eight decades old American man, with the added stressors of what is infamously one of the most stressful jobs in the country.
I cannot think of a single appearance in the last year or two where he did not seem utterly exhausted, and that exhaustion is increasing in severity with each appearance.
Joe Biden is not a miracle man who is immune to becoming old, and the physical and mental decline that comes along with that, and the repeated insistence that this is not a problem is rapidly becoming a Naked King moment for the Democrats.
No, actual proof Lanz. Show me something other then vague insinuations. Cause the people who actually deal with him have all said he's fine from anything I've read. And I've seen no repeated public demonstrations.
I am not going to go grabbing multiple videos from the past three months of Biden struggling to speak, repeatedly pausing for words and phrasing in a way that did not bother the younger firebrand Biden of forty years ago, just because you are committed to not seeing what is present and are willing and prepared to say whatever I find does not constitute proof of what I am saying.
Which is ultimately the problem at hand: a partisan coalition both of politicians and their fans who willingly excuse what is obvious to many, not too unlike the partisan divides between Republican supporters and Democrat supporters.
Levity aside, I do think it's important to note that "not as sharp as he was 20 years ago" is not the same as "not sharp enough for the office".
Ten years ago, my memory was impeccable. Today it is less impeccable. It's not bad, it doesn't in any way make me incapable of doing my job, but yeah, time takes a toll.
Point being, the simple fact that maybe Biden 2024 isn't the same as Biden 2016 isn't super meaningful in itself.
And yeah, to be convinced that he's currently senile is going to take more than a media-made supercut of the guy with a well documented stutter tripping over his words or pausing before answering.
Yup, this is where you run into situations where experience can compensate for age. Most older athletes aren't as quick / strong / fit as they were when they were young, and age eventually catches up, but knowledge and experience and developing skills can compensate for a lot.
Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity where simple experience and a few minutes of analysis will get to the same or better conclusion.
Age related decline is a real thing, for sure. But I'm not convinced any of the hard cutoff age stuff solves any problems at all. And there are definitely a lot of rehash 2016 / 2020 primary veefs that are using age as 'concerns' as stalking horses.
Just some good ol’ boys who know each other and know how things are done
I'd say if you don't think interpersonal relationships and the depths of those relationships are important in accomplishing things in any organization I'd say you are naive.
Or someone who runs into assholes all day every day and can't figure out why you can't accomplish anything you want.
I think this philosophy of politics is a recipe for cronyism and corruption, particularly as leveled as a defense of “why we should keep a bunch of the same people in office for decades at a time,” and I think greatly contributes to the way that our government, particularly the legislature, functions less as a sound governing body and more the nation’s most elite country club.
While relationships are important, they should be the larger, collective relationships between nations and peoples, not the specific interpersonal relationships between representatives, and new representatives should be able to forge new relationships with each other based on the larger interconnectedness of nations.
(blink)
This is not how social bonds work, past, present, or future.
Levity aside, I do think it's important to note that "not as sharp as he was 20 years ago" is not the same as "not sharp enough for the office".
Ten years ago, my memory was impeccable. Today it is less impeccable. It's not bad, it doesn't in any way make me incapable of doing my job, but yeah, time takes a toll.
Point being, the simple fact that maybe Biden 2024 isn't the same as Biden 2016 isn't super meaningful in itself.
And yeah, to be convinced that he's currently senile is going to take more than a media-made supercut of the guy with a well documented stutter tripping over his words or pausing before answering.
Yup, this is where you run into situations where experience can compensate for age. Most older athletes aren't as quick / strong / fit as they were when they were young, and age eventually catches up, but knowledge and experience and developing skills can compensate for a lot.
Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity where simple experience and a few minutes of analysis will get to the same or better conclusion.
Age related decline is a real thing, for sure. But I'm not convinced any of the hard cutoff age stuff solves any problems at all. And there are definitely a lot of rehash 2016 / 2020 primary veefs that are using age as 'concerns' as stalking horses.
Just some good ol’ boys who know each other and know how things are done
I'd say if you don't think interpersonal relationships and the depths of those relationships are important in accomplishing things in any organization I'd say you are naive.
Or someone who runs into assholes all day every day and can't figure out why you can't accomplish anything you want.
I think this philosophy of politics is a recipe for cronyism and corruption, particularly as leveled as a defense of “why we should keep a bunch of the same people in office for decades at a time,” and I think greatly contributes to the way that our government, particularly the legislature, functions less as a sound governing body and more the nation’s most elite country club.
While relationships are important, they should be the larger, collective relationships between nations and peoples, not the specific interpersonal relationships between representatives, and new representatives should be able to forge new relationships with each other based on the larger interconnectedness of nations.
Maybe they should be, but they are not, and never will be, because humans are social animals who like interpersonal relationships.
It is extremely weird that you either don't understand this or think that it's an inherently bad thing.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Levity aside, I do think it's important to note that "not as sharp as he was 20 years ago" is not the same as "not sharp enough for the office".
Ten years ago, my memory was impeccable. Today it is less impeccable. It's not bad, it doesn't in any way make me incapable of doing my job, but yeah, time takes a toll.
Point being, the simple fact that maybe Biden 2024 isn't the same as Biden 2016 isn't super meaningful in itself.
And yeah, to be convinced that he's currently senile is going to take more than a media-made supercut of the guy with a well documented stutter tripping over his words or pausing before answering.
Yup, this is where you run into situations where experience can compensate for age. Most older athletes aren't as quick / strong / fit as they were when they were young, and age eventually catches up, but knowledge and experience and developing skills can compensate for a lot.
Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity where simple experience and a few minutes of analysis will get to the same or better conclusion.
Age related decline is a real thing, for sure. But I'm not convinced any of the hard cutoff age stuff solves any problems at all. And there are definitely a lot of rehash 2016 / 2020 primary veefs that are using age as 'concerns' as stalking horses.
Just some good ol’ boys who know each other and know how things are done
I'd say if you don't think interpersonal relationships and the depths of those relationships are important in accomplishing things in any organization I'd say you are naive.
Or someone who runs into assholes all day every day and can't figure out why you can't accomplish anything you want.
I think this philosophy of politics is a recipe for cronyism and corruption, particularly as leveled as a defense of “why we should keep a bunch of the same people in office for decades at a time,” and I think greatly contributes to the way that our government, particularly the legislature, functions less as a sound governing body and more the nation’s most elite country club.
While relationships are important, they should be the larger, collective relationships between nations and peoples, not the specific interpersonal relationships between representatives, and new representatives should be able to forge new relationships with each other based on the larger interconnectedness of nations.
(blink)
This is not how social bonds work, past, present, or future.
So y’all seriously don’t see how your logic gives way to systematic abuses of cronyism, where the leaders of governments substitute benefitting themselves and those they’re connected to over the wellbeing of the populace they serve?
Cause I read these posts and I don’t see the principle foundations of how government works, let alone good governance, I see the fetid trappings of the shit that has plagued society at countless levels where politicians work for themselves and the limited pool of whom they deem real human beings while everyone else has to suffer for the enrichment of the privileged few.
Levity aside, I do think it's important to note that "not as sharp as he was 20 years ago" is not the same as "not sharp enough for the office".
Ten years ago, my memory was impeccable. Today it is less impeccable. It's not bad, it doesn't in any way make me incapable of doing my job, but yeah, time takes a toll.
Point being, the simple fact that maybe Biden 2024 isn't the same as Biden 2016 isn't super meaningful in itself.
And yeah, to be convinced that he's currently senile is going to take more than a media-made supercut of the guy with a well documented stutter tripping over his words or pausing before answering.
Yup, this is where you run into situations where experience can compensate for age. Most older athletes aren't as quick / strong / fit as they were when they were young, and age eventually catches up, but knowledge and experience and developing skills can compensate for a lot.
Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity where simple experience and a few minutes of analysis will get to the same or better conclusion.
Age related decline is a real thing, for sure. But I'm not convinced any of the hard cutoff age stuff solves any problems at all. And there are definitely a lot of rehash 2016 / 2020 primary veefs that are using age as 'concerns' as stalking horses.
Just some good ol’ boys who know each other and know how things are done
I'd say if you don't think interpersonal relationships and the depths of those relationships are important in accomplishing things in any organization I'd say you are naive.
Or someone who runs into assholes all day every day and can't figure out why you can't accomplish anything you want.
I think this philosophy of politics is a recipe for cronyism and corruption, particularly as leveled as a defense of “why we should keep a bunch of the same people in office for decades at a time,” and I think greatly contributes to the way that our government, particularly the legislature, functions less as a sound governing body and more the nation’s most elite country club.
While relationships are important, they should be the larger, collective relationships between nations and peoples, not the specific interpersonal relationships between representatives, and new representatives should be able to forge new relationships with each other based on the larger interconnectedness of nations.
Maybe they should be, but they are not, and never will be, because humans are social animals who like interpersonal relationships.
It is extremely weird that you either don't understand this or think that it's an inherently bad thing.
At least the mask is coming off about good and proper governance being based in any sense meritocracy, I suppose. Just the same old Who You Know that keeps the riff raff out.
Wanting people who aren't assholes and can work with other people in power being decried as 'mask off' is absolutely absurd. You are so far around the bend I'm not sure you've actually met people.
Wanting people who aren't assholes and can work with other people in power being decried as 'mask off' is absolutely absurd. You are so far around the bend I'm not sure you've actually met people.
Touch grass.
Sometimes it makes it so your only opponent doesn't actually spend time attacking you because he likes you so much. Much to the consternation of said opponent's online supporters.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Levity aside, I do think it's important to note that "not as sharp as he was 20 years ago" is not the same as "not sharp enough for the office".
Ten years ago, my memory was impeccable. Today it is less impeccable. It's not bad, it doesn't in any way make me incapable of doing my job, but yeah, time takes a toll.
Point being, the simple fact that maybe Biden 2024 isn't the same as Biden 2016 isn't super meaningful in itself.
And yeah, to be convinced that he's currently senile is going to take more than a media-made supercut of the guy with a well documented stutter tripping over his words or pausing before answering.
Yup, this is where you run into situations where experience can compensate for age. Most older athletes aren't as quick / strong / fit as they were when they were young, and age eventually catches up, but knowledge and experience and developing skills can compensate for a lot.
Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity where simple experience and a few minutes of analysis will get to the same or better conclusion.
Age related decline is a real thing, for sure. But I'm not convinced any of the hard cutoff age stuff solves any problems at all. And there are definitely a lot of rehash 2016 / 2020 primary veefs that are using age as 'concerns' as stalking horses.
Just some good ol’ boys who know each other and know how things are done
I'd say if you don't think interpersonal relationships and the depths of those relationships are important in accomplishing things in any organization I'd say you are naive.
Or someone who runs into assholes all day every day and can't figure out why you can't accomplish anything you want.
I think this philosophy of politics is a recipe for cronyism and corruption, particularly as leveled as a defense of “why we should keep a bunch of the same people in office for decades at a time,” and I think greatly contributes to the way that our government, particularly the legislature, functions less as a sound governing body and more the nation’s most elite country club.
While relationships are important, they should be the larger, collective relationships between nations and peoples, not the specific interpersonal relationships between representatives, and new representatives should be able to forge new relationships with each other based on the larger interconnectedness of nations.
(blink)
This is not how social bonds work, past, present, or future.
So y’all seriously don’t see how your logic gives way to systematic abuses of cronyism, where the leaders of governments substitute benefitting themselves and those they’re connected to over the wellbeing of the populace they serve?
Cause I read these posts and I don’t see the principle foundations of how government works, let alone good governance, I see the fetid trappings of the shit that has plagued society at countless levels where politicians work for themselves and the limited pool of whom they deem real human beings while everyone else has to suffer for the enrichment of the privileged few.
Nah, this is spherical cow logic that fails to acknowledge that at the end of the day, all "elites" (or any group, to be honest) are is collections of individuals with common interests, and the trick is orienting those common interests to worthwhile ends.
Levity aside, I do think it's important to note that "not as sharp as he was 20 years ago" is not the same as "not sharp enough for the office".
Ten years ago, my memory was impeccable. Today it is less impeccable. It's not bad, it doesn't in any way make me incapable of doing my job, but yeah, time takes a toll.
Point being, the simple fact that maybe Biden 2024 isn't the same as Biden 2016 isn't super meaningful in itself.
And yeah, to be convinced that he's currently senile is going to take more than a media-made supercut of the guy with a well documented stutter tripping over his words or pausing before answering.
Yup, this is where you run into situations where experience can compensate for age. Most older athletes aren't as quick / strong / fit as they were when they were young, and age eventually catches up, but knowledge and experience and developing skills can compensate for a lot.
Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity where simple experience and a few minutes of analysis will get to the same or better conclusion.
Age related decline is a real thing, for sure. But I'm not convinced any of the hard cutoff age stuff solves any problems at all. And there are definitely a lot of rehash 2016 / 2020 primary veefs that are using age as 'concerns' as stalking horses.
Just some good ol’ boys who know each other and know how things are done
I'd say if you don't think interpersonal relationships and the depths of those relationships are important in accomplishing things in any organization I'd say you are naive.
Or someone who runs into assholes all day every day and can't figure out why you can't accomplish anything you want.
I think this philosophy of politics is a recipe for cronyism and corruption, particularly as leveled as a defense of “why we should keep a bunch of the same people in office for decades at a time,” and I think greatly contributes to the way that our government, particularly the legislature, functions less as a sound governing body and more the nation’s most elite country club.
While relationships are important, they should be the larger, collective relationships between nations and peoples, not the specific interpersonal relationships between representatives, and new representatives should be able to forge new relationships with each other based on the larger interconnectedness of nations.
Maybe they should be, but they are not, and never will be, because humans are social animals who like interpersonal relationships.
It is extremely weird that you either don't understand this or think that it's an inherently bad thing.
At least the mask is coming off about good and proper governance being based in any sense meritocracy, I suppose. Just the same old Who You Know that keeps the riff raff out.
Umm.
We're not talking about people cynically benefiting themselves at the expense of others.
We're talking about developing good working relationships with peers that makes it easier to work with them.
Like, if I tell you that I enjoy working with people at my job, are you thinking, "Wow, he must be trying to figure out a way to funnel those sweet sweet cannabis licensing fee dollars into his pocket"?
How do you think real people function, Lanz?
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I wish the options weren't all so godddamned old but I suppose there's just failures at all levels leading there; if old people were so shit then why haven't the new out-competed them (a la Obama telling the DNC he didn't need their fundraising apparatus)
Is this a uniquely American problem? The EU leaders I'm familiar with are old but not 70+
Yes, it's a weirdly American thing and has been for a generation at least. "Too old to be a politician here and not old enough to be a politician in America" is something a couple of statesmen this side of the Atlantic have quoted, but I'm not sure who is the original source.
I think probably the biggest reason why this is the case is that it is generational, as soon as the old guys don't leave or hang on until it's 'their turn', they're all eating into the time of the politicians below them who are more or less replaced at the same rate.
If you're taking the US as the example here, death rates double per 10K people once you hit the 45-55 boundary, and then double ever 10 years after that. But if those top spots are held and competed for by a group of 75-85 year olds over ten years - using UK numbers, only 10% would be expected to die in any given year so the top job could easily stay within that group before passing to a younger 75 year old. 65 to 75? About 1% per year will die off, and yeah - the laws of compound interest here will come into play but the number of top jobs we're talking about is very small.
So because US politicians are so abnormally old, and they never retire because the only way to get the top jobs is to never retire, there isn't much space for the younger future leaders. You'll get the odd Obama jumping the queue in exceptional times, but if your systems take so long and so much cash to nominate a leader that the incumbent advantage is as strong as it is, and expensive as it is so that it's very risky to not put your money behind a known quantity - septuagenarians plus is what you get.
The weak party system is also to blame, as that is why it costs so much. Nationwide, year-long primaries rather than the party itself deciding means that any insurgent candidate needs to have national level funding almost baked in at the start in a system that favours establishment candidates.
If candidates were determined at the conventions, and electioneering was more strictly limited to a shorter period of time, then that would open up the playing field to a lot more groups and activists to get a step on the ground floor and mean that the main determining factor at the leadership contests themselves would be more vision and drive. More townhall type stuff and debates rather than stump speeches feels like it would level the playing field between the well funded older politicians and the hot up and coming firebrands as the main Party events are not funded by the individual candidates.
Give the Parties more control over who represents them, don't use the Primary system as a dry run of the Presidential system and you'll see younger candidates. The current primary system doesn't really allow for insurgent candidates, it's just a slow consensus building exercise, marketing run and test bed for the Presidential system. Want to supplant the obvious candidate? You've got three years to convince the people you'd work with to do so before we ask the general populace to pick between the Parties. If you can't convince your own side that you'd be better over 3-7 years then don't waste everyone else's time just ahead of an election, but doing that is going to be a lot cheaper than what you're doing now.
Yeah. I have some suspicion (but no proof) that part of what happens in the US is that the weak party structure means powerful politicians are much more of an individual brand and thus can keep getting elected easier with no one able to stop them and are also insulated from the backstabbing that stronger parties usually engage in to shuffle their elder statesman off the political coil.
Again though its a much more recent phenomena than the party system in the US.
John F Kennedy was 43 when he became president.
Lyndon Johnson was 55.
Richard Nixon was 56 (and had previously run when he was 48)
Gerald Ford was 61.
Jimmy Carter was 52 .
Ronald Regan was 69
George HW bush was 64.
Bill Clinton was 46.
George W Bush was 54.
Barrack Obama was 47.
Donald Trump was 70.
Joe Biden was 78.
Wanting people who aren't assholes and can work with other people in power being decried as 'mask off' is absolutely absurd. You are so far around the bend I'm not sure you've actually met people.
Touch grass.
Because, given the history of Democratic Party politics being a highly insular body that is highly resistant to new blood and has repeatedly reworked itself to protect the established old guard against any upset against newcomers who are also Democrats (once those newcomers subverted the earlier safeguards holding them back; examples in brief include Obama and AOC’s upsets against Clinton and Crowley, respectively), when you say “ Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart” I don’t read this as “the ability to form and maintain relationships with others is an important part of navigating politics”
I read it as defending the practice that the Party has employed for years, its practice of the Iron Law of Institutions (the practice of people of power within an institution acting to defend their own personal holds on power over the well being of the institution as a whole or its capacity to be effective). I read it as emphasizing the importance of pre-existing relationships overall, averse to any form of meritocratic induction into the institution and an aversion to expertise beyond the expertise of being a Beltway Ghoul desperately holding onto the reins of power until they crumble into dust.
We are in a situation where a fundamental question of our government is if the gerontocratic Democratic Party is bolstering a man too old to be doing the job because the party has committed itself to defending an elite group of privileged insiders who have, effectively, held power for as long as most of us posting here have been alive rather than stepping aside and letting the new generation step up and lead, and whether this impulse is now leading to a situation in which they fail to the Republicans at a critical juncture in history because they were too stubborn to finally let the fuck go.
So do you not see how your position reads as a defense of their ultimately self-destructive practices, a form of good ol’ boy cronyism, rather than a more generic “the beginning of politics is the capacity to form interpersonal relationships and supports with other people”? Particularly when you downplay sharpness, acuity, intelligence, and the ability to see the larger picture* in favor of “relationships and networks”?
*“being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity”
There's a larger issue of Gen X being relatively politically disengaged and those who are are mostly right wing. Especially white men, where we usually draw our leadership from (stupidly, but different story). Under-considered feature.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
There's a larger issue of Gen X being relatively politically disengaged and those who are are mostly right wing. Especially white men, where we usually draw our leadership from (stupidly, but different story). Under-considered feature.
Yep - Gen X came of political age during a pronounced Democratic nadir in politics, and that heavily shaped their political orientation.
There's a larger issue of Gen X being relatively politically disengaged and those who are are mostly right wing. Especially white men, where we usually draw our leadership from (stupidly, but different story). Under-considered feature.
Given the way the Republicans have not seemingly had this problem of burning through new blood, and the degrees to which the Democratic Party has repeatedly attempted to stymie the methods used by insurgent candidates (destruction of OfA, prohibitions against vendors supporting democratic primary challengers in the wake of AOC, etc.) and have come out to deliberately tip the scales in favor of incumbents against younger primary challengers (example: party rallying behind the anti-choice Cuellar against the progressive Jessica Cisneros in their primary), I do not think the disengagement is the factor here, as well as it generally ignores that the Millenial generation is pushing our forties now and have similarly been kept out of the party in favor of Boomers who have been there for-fucking-ever
The sheer size of the USA might account for the length of time it takes to become a nationally-known politician. Smaller countries often seem to have more youthful leaders because there’s a shorter time necessary to obtain a national profile.
The sheer size of the USA might account for the length of time it takes to become a nationally-known politician. Smaller countries often seem to have more youthful leaders because there’s a shorter time necessary to obtain a national profile.
We also have substantially more billionaires and more wealth inequality than most countries. I mean it's a lot of things.
Posts
But it's why the discussion always leads to where we see it now.
In that case, I declare that Biden in 2024 is the sharpest politician to ever hold the oval office, and only gets sharper with age. I submit as proof that yuh-huuuuuh.
This is bullshit and you should know better than to spread it
The actual quote was a speculation as to what Biden might act like if he was charged with a crime, by a Federalist Society-affiliated special prosecutor* who was bitter that his fishing expedition couldn’t find anything criminal to charge, but did know that every word in his report (including his evidence-free editorializing about a supposed decline in Biden’s mental acuity would be picked up and exploited by bad-faith actors.
*who should never have been appointed but that’s a whole other issue
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Ten years ago, my memory was impeccable. Today it is less impeccable. It's not bad, it doesn't in any way make me incapable of doing my job, but yeah, time takes a toll.
Point being, the simple fact that maybe Biden 2024 isn't the same as Biden 2016 isn't super meaningful in itself.
And yeah, to be convinced that he's currently senile is going to take more than a media-made supercut of the guy with a well documented stutter tripping over his words or pausing before answering.
Aphasia isn't dementia, though.
Yes, it's a weirdly American thing and has been for a generation at least. "Too old to be a politician here and not old enough to be a politician in America" is something a couple of statesmen this side of the Atlantic have quoted, but I'm not sure who is the original source.
I think probably the biggest reason why this is the case is that it is generational, as soon as the old guys don't leave or hang on until it's 'their turn', they're all eating into the time of the politicians below them who are more or less replaced at the same rate.
If you're taking the US as the example here, death rates double per 10K people once you hit the 45-55 boundary, and then double ever 10 years after that. But if those top spots are held and competed for by a group of 75-85 year olds over ten years - using UK numbers, only 10% would be expected to die in any given year so the top job could easily stay within that group before passing to a younger 75 year old. 65 to 75? About 1% per year will die off, and yeah - the laws of compound interest here will come into play but the number of top jobs we're talking about is very small.
So because US politicians are so abnormally old, and they never retire because the only way to get the top jobs is to never retire, there isn't much space for the younger future leaders. You'll get the odd Obama jumping the queue in exceptional times, but if your systems take so long and so much cash to nominate a leader that the incumbent advantage is as strong as it is, and expensive as it is so that it's very risky to not put your money behind a known quantity - septuagenarians plus is what you get.
The weak party system is also to blame, as that is why it costs so much. Nationwide, year-long primaries rather than the party itself deciding means that any insurgent candidate needs to have national level funding almost baked in at the start in a system that favours establishment candidates.
If candidates were determined at the conventions, and electioneering was more strictly limited to a shorter period of time, then that would open up the playing field to a lot more groups and activists to get a step on the ground floor and mean that the main determining factor at the leadership contests themselves would be more vision and drive. More townhall type stuff and debates rather than stump speeches feels like it would level the playing field between the well funded older politicians and the hot up and coming firebrands as the main Party events are not funded by the individual candidates.
Give the Parties more control over who represents them, don't use the Primary system as a dry run of the Presidential system and you'll see younger candidates. The current primary system doesn't really allow for insurgent candidates, it's just a slow consensus building exercise, marketing run and test bed for the Presidential system. Want to supplant the obvious candidate? You've got three years to convince the people you'd work with to do so before we ask the general populace to pick between the Parties. If you can't convince your own side that you'd be better over 3-7 years then don't waste everyone else's time just ahead of an election, but doing that is going to be a lot cheaper than what you're doing now.
TLDR: The US's seemingly unique weak party system means that you need name recognition and a national funding network to even consider a serious run for President. Which then caps the top levels of political office as people can't move out but instead are the only people seemingly poised to have another go at it even after 4-8 years.
Yes, Trump is a stupid fucking fuckity fuck. This is not in question.
Yeah. I have some suspicion (but no proof) that part of what happens in the US is that the weak party structure means powerful politicians are much more of an individual brand and thus can keep getting elected easier with no one able to stop them and are also insulated from the backstabbing that stronger parties usually engage in to shuffle their elder statesman off the political coil.
I know, but it takes me two seconds to prove it.
The sheer amount of effort I require to find any of the copious videos to prove my point. It's shattering how much effort I need to put in. Truly.
This 100%
Despite the assertions of many in this thread the parties are incredibly weak in the US, at least in comparison to other countries. There is no “three line whip” here.
It’s why politicians who can count are so valuable.
Yup, this is where you run into situations where experience can compensate for age. Most older athletes aren't as quick / strong / fit as they were when they were young, and age eventually catches up, but knowledge and experience and developing skills can compensate for a lot.
Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity where simple experience and a few minutes of analysis will get to the same or better conclusion.
Age related decline is a real thing, for sure. But I'm not convinced any of the hard cutoff age stuff solves any problems at all. And there are definitely a lot of rehash 2016 / 2020 primary veefs that are using age as 'concerns' as stalking horses.
but i think the truth is he just doesnt give a fuck about what's happening to the Palestinian people and that's been his way of thinking for decades
another reason why the out of touch, ignorant and legitimately harmful older generation should not be allowed to stay in power
You do have to be a bit careful about the natural replacement process. Don't want to accidentally anger Aline Chrétien with it, and get four more years.
Well “do nothing” does seem to be the repeat go to plan for the Democrats for the past several years, so why change now, I suppose.
Just some good ol’ boys who know each other and know how things are done
I'd say if you don't think interpersonal relationships and the depths of those relationships are important in accomplishing things in any organization I'd say you are naive.
Or someone who runs into assholes all day every day and can't figure out why you can't accomplish anything you want.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Or people used to dealing with a lot of moving parts, which isolated elders at the top are not. There's too much focus on the individual here as whether that candidate is the right person for the job due to their innate abilities, which if you're not having them regularly interact with the rest of the real world isn't really going to matter.
Billionaires can billionaire pretty well even whilst potentially dead. It's a lot harder to be involved in the activist and constituent worlds without being part of it.
Yeah, Clay Bennett doesn't pull punches in his editorial cartoons. I also respect that he knows the 64DD existed.
Are you seriously coming out against... good working relationships?
Is working well with your peers a sinister tool of our capitalist overlords?
Who knew there was politics in politicians work?
I think this philosophy of politics is a recipe for cronyism and corruption, particularly as leveled as a defense of “why we should keep a bunch of the same people in office for decades at a time,” and I think greatly contributes to the way that our government, particularly the legislature, functions less as a sound governing body and more the nation’s most elite country club.
While relationships are important, they should be the larger, collective relationships between nations and peoples, not the specific interpersonal relationships between representatives, and new representatives should be able to forge new relationships with each other based on the larger interconnectedness of nations.
You call it “not pulling punches,” I call it “making a mockery of police violence typically employed against minorities”
(blink)
This is not how social bonds work, past, present, or future.
Maybe they should be, but they are not, and never will be, because humans are social animals who like interpersonal relationships.
It is extremely weird that you either don't understand this or think that it's an inherently bad thing.
So y’all seriously don’t see how your logic gives way to systematic abuses of cronyism, where the leaders of governments substitute benefitting themselves and those they’re connected to over the wellbeing of the populace they serve?
Cause I read these posts and I don’t see the principle foundations of how government works, let alone good governance, I see the fetid trappings of the shit that has plagued society at countless levels where politicians work for themselves and the limited pool of whom they deem real human beings while everyone else has to suffer for the enrichment of the privileged few.
At least the mask is coming off about good and proper governance being based in any sense meritocracy, I suppose. Just the same old Who You Know that keeps the riff raff out.
Touch grass.
Sometimes it makes it so your only opponent doesn't actually spend time attacking you because he likes you so much. Much to the consternation of said opponent's online supporters.
Nah, this is spherical cow logic that fails to acknowledge that at the end of the day, all "elites" (or any group, to be honest) are is collections of individuals with common interests, and the trick is orienting those common interests to worthwhile ends.
Umm.
We're not talking about people cynically benefiting themselves at the expense of others.
We're talking about developing good working relationships with peers that makes it easier to work with them.
Like, if I tell you that I enjoy working with people at my job, are you thinking, "Wow, he must be trying to figure out a way to funnel those sweet sweet cannabis licensing fee dollars into his pocket"?
How do you think real people function, Lanz?
Again though its a much more recent phenomena than the party system in the US.
John F Kennedy was 43 when he became president.
Lyndon Johnson was 55.
Richard Nixon was 56 (and had previously run when he was 48)
Gerald Ford was 61.
Jimmy Carter was 52 .
Ronald Regan was 69
George HW bush was 64.
Bill Clinton was 46.
George W Bush was 54.
Barrack Obama was 47.
Donald Trump was 70.
Joe Biden was 78.
Its pretty clear Obama is not the outlier here.
Because, given the history of Democratic Party politics being a highly insular body that is highly resistant to new blood and has repeatedly reworked itself to protect the established old guard against any upset against newcomers who are also Democrats (once those newcomers subverted the earlier safeguards holding them back; examples in brief include Obama and AOC’s upsets against Clinton and Crowley, respectively), when you say “ Politics is as much if not more about relationships and networks as it is about being instant sharp and smart” I don’t read this as “the ability to form and maintain relationships with others is an important part of navigating politics”
I read it as defending the practice that the Party has employed for years, its practice of the Iron Law of Institutions (the practice of people of power within an institution acting to defend their own personal holds on power over the well being of the institution as a whole or its capacity to be effective). I read it as emphasizing the importance of pre-existing relationships overall, averse to any form of meritocratic induction into the institution and an aversion to expertise beyond the expertise of being a Beltway Ghoul desperately holding onto the reins of power until they crumble into dust.
We are in a situation where a fundamental question of our government is if the gerontocratic Democratic Party is bolstering a man too old to be doing the job because the party has committed itself to defending an elite group of privileged insiders who have, effectively, held power for as long as most of us posting here have been alive rather than stepping aside and letting the new generation step up and lead, and whether this impulse is now leading to a situation in which they fail to the Republicans at a critical juncture in history because they were too stubborn to finally let the fuck go.
So do you not see how your position reads as a defense of their ultimately self-destructive practices, a form of good ol’ boy cronyism, rather than a more generic “the beginning of politics is the capacity to form interpersonal relationships and supports with other people”? Particularly when you downplay sharpness, acuity, intelligence, and the ability to see the larger picture* in favor of “relationships and networks”?
*“being instant sharp and smart. Rarely does it ever matter something needs to be analyzed and decided on now with some CSI or Bones level savant full picture acuity”
Yep - Gen X came of political age during a pronounced Democratic nadir in politics, and that heavily shaped their political orientation.
Given the way the Republicans have not seemingly had this problem of burning through new blood, and the degrees to which the Democratic Party has repeatedly attempted to stymie the methods used by insurgent candidates (destruction of OfA, prohibitions against vendors supporting democratic primary challengers in the wake of AOC, etc.) and have come out to deliberately tip the scales in favor of incumbents against younger primary challengers (example: party rallying behind the anti-choice Cuellar against the progressive Jessica Cisneros in their primary), I do not think the disengagement is the factor here, as well as it generally ignores that the Millenial generation is pushing our forties now and have similarly been kept out of the party in favor of Boomers who have been there for-fucking-ever
We also have substantially more billionaires and more wealth inequality than most countries. I mean it's a lot of things.