The General 'Murican Politics Thread

[TailsTellsTales]

Why do many people value party loyalty above policy? I keep reading many things where all they care about is Sanders not being a democrat. Like who cares about the label it about policy!

[8ther]

I can't help but feel that we've reached the point of no return in America, Russia will ether meddle to purge Dem voters allowing Republicans to maintain all branches of government, or meddle(sloppily so they can be easily traced) to help Democrats(without their knowing or consent)to win elections in the midterms to sow division and discord in the US.

Speaking of which...

He's already setting the stage to claim election fraud, i wouldn't be surprised if during their summit last week, him and Putin were planning this out.

 

[KHCast]

“No president has been tougher on the Russians than me” Yknow I’m just gonna accept he’s in his own fantasy at this point. But yeah, he’s clearly trying to set up the narrative that I’d dems win midterms it’s simply cause of Russian interference. Kinda ironic when you think about it  

[Patticus]

The census citizenship question has re-emerged in the news, after it was revealed that Wilbur Ross lied repeatedly about who requested it (he did, not the DoJ, as he claimed).

Tweet thread:

Ross is nothing but a Trumpist liar who should fired.
 

Edit: Stormy Daniels' arrest in Columbus the other week was pre-planned by corrupt, partisan high-ranking members of the police force, most likely as an intimidation tactic.

Quote

Whistleblower: Stormy Daniels arrest in Columbus was pre-planned

Quote

In an exclusive investigation, the Advocate has obtained emails from a whistleblower from inside the Columbus Police Department that outline the arrest of Stormy Daniels earlier this month may have been pre-planned days before she ever arrived in town.

A whistleblower from the City of Columbus contacted the Advocate with numerous emails between several high-ranking Columbus police detectives and VICE officers.

Inside the emails are news clippings discussing Daniels’ planned appearance in Columbus, pictures of Daniels with President Donald Trump, videos of her dancing, and even a map to the club where she would be performing, all sent days before she would pull into town on her tour bus.

Quote

The bulk of the emails that the whistleblower provided are from the email account of Detective Shana Keckley. Keckley was one of the lead-arresting officers the night that the “sting” operation went down.

“It is clear that Keckley and her fellow officers were there because of Stormy and only because of Stormy,” the whistleblower told the Advocate in an interview.

Quote

After Daniels’ arrest that Wednesday night, the emails continue into the early morning hours of Thursday, but the contents are disturbing.

“I got the elements….we arrested Stormy this morning, she is in jail.” “Elements” are the burden police officers must meet in order to make an arrest.

In another email dated on July 12 at 3:50 a.m., Keckley writes to another police officer bragging about Daniel’s arrest — without mentioning her by name — saying, “You’re Welcome!!!!!….Thank me in person later.”

Keckley went on to send additional emails, including one to Shane Keckley — purportedly her husband — writing, “It is all over CNN. I wanted you to know before everyone contacts you.”

http://thefayetteadvocate.com/2018/07/25/whistleblower-provides-emails-that-show-stormy-daniels-arrest-was-pre-planned/

[Tani Coyote]

Can hardly wait for the witchhunt within the PD to find out who the whisteblower is. Good to see there are still people within the police system who are eager to expose the corruption of their colleagues.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/26/news/companies/papa-johns-lawsuit-john-schnatter/index.html

Broflake John Schnatter is crying that he's being mistreated by Papa John's, and so has issued a lawsuit against them.

The fact he doesn't understand it's bad policy to say the n-word regardless of context demonstrates capitalism has nothing to do with meritocracy. Right now, he's accusing the board of planning to overthrow him and they just used this as an opportunity.

He's trying to paint himself as a sympathetic figure with that but... that's like... how business works. You actively plot to dominate your competition. He said something stupid that could cost the company money, it was a perfect reason to get rid of him. They've also put measures in place that make it extremely hard for him to increase his share of the company.

[Candescence]

Oh boy. Michael Cohen apparently is claiming that Trump knew about the Trump Tower meeting with the Russians in advance and signed off on it. Which, if true, proves that collusion did happen.

Excuse me while I get some popcorn.

 

[Patticus]

10 hours ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

He said something stupid that could cost the company money, it was a perfect reason to get rid of him. They've also put measures in place that make it extremely hard for him to increase his share of the company.

Imagine the furor if the board had stuck with him, or not done anything either way; the likely boycotts and protests, the negative headlines. You have to get out way ahead of shit like this when it pops into the news, you have to be proactive in meting out punishments, or your brand will absolutely suffer and you'll lose a lot of money. He had to go, hell he had to resign as soon as the news broke, but since he didn't the next best thing happened. The fact that he's now suing the company... yeah he's completely tone deaf, probably from living inside a rich conservative bubble where saying that shit is a-okay.

My brother was friends with the daughter of a Papa John's exec in university, in Edinburgh, Scotland. He was invited their home in Kentucky one summer. Never, he says, has he known people more self-centered or up their own ass. Schnatter more than likely is the same kind of man; narcissistic, huge ego, thinks his shit don't stink, cognizant that saying racist things is bad but doesn't have any concept that his words have consequences.

[Tani Coyote]

44 minutes ago, Patticus said:

Never, he says, has he known people more self-centered or up their own ass. Schnatter more than likely is the same kind of man; narcissistic, huge ego, thinks his shit don't stink, cognizant that saying racist things is bad but doesn't have any concept that his words have consequences.

This is basically what seems to determine whether a rich person is going to lean more liberal or conservative. Do they see themselves as these gods among men, who are innately more superior than all those peons who are poor just because they are lazy, or do they recognize they had a lot of opportunities that allowed them to succeed, and they can't fault people for having the same opportunities?

Of course, a word of caution that some Hollywood celebrities, in spite of their supposed liberalism and a tendency to view the world in different terms due to gaining wealth from the arts rather than industry, are also considerably up their own asses.

[Tani Coyote]

http://dailycaller.com/2018/07/23/conservative-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-rally/

I give you a conservative article that is both hilarious and depressing in terms of its irony.

She goes to a rally headed by a progressive, and finds the speeches "terrifying." Standing proud behind her (flawed) understanding of history, she says she saw "how easy it would be, as a parent, to accept the idea that my children deserve healthcare and education; how easy it would be, as someone who has struggled to make ends meet, to accept the idea that a 'living wage' was a human right; [and] how easy it would be to accept the notion that it was the government’s job to make sure that those things were provided." She literally is phrasing these ideas this way, while implying they're wrong.

In spite of her hatred of populism, I'd bet $10 she's a fan of Andrew Jackson, a (white) populist, and in spite of her love for our nation's history and traditions, she applauded the McDonald v. Chicago decision even though the Supreme Court had traditionally considered the Second Amendment to only apply in terms of militia duty; the major advocates of the Constitution were likewise insistent on the militia aspect.

Holy fucking shit.

[KHCast]

https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2018/07/29/trump-tweets-cohen-immigration-polls-747473

Well someone seems a bit angry today. 

[TailsTellsTales]

Is anybody prepared for second Trump term? Like has anybody even considered that? It could happen especially if the democratic side rigs the election again. People are tired of voting against the lesser of two evils.

[KHCast]

11 minutes ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Is anybody prepared for second Trump term? Like has anybody even considered that? It could happen especially if the democratic side rigs the election again. People are tired of voting against the lesser of two evils.

Exactly where is this proof they did it the first time and are set to do it again?

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/poll-shows-dead-heat-in-nevada-senate-governor-races/

Not quite fire and brimstone yet, but still a little concerning. The Republicans have a slight (less than a percentage) lead in Nevada's Governor and Senate seat races. Considering Nevada has been trending Democrat and the President is Republic and fairly unpopular, this is a surprising development. The Democrats should be favorites, particularly for the open Governor's seat.

Nevada is one of the more interesting races this year. Not only does it hold the most likely seat for Democrats to pickup, but the new Governor will be the one to decide whether or not a bill to allow Nevadans to purchase non-profit insurance passes. It was vetoed by the current Governor, but the bill is going to come up again in the 2019 session. If it passes Nevada, it may very well start getting picked up in other states.

12 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

 

Is anybody prepared for second Trump term? Like has anybody even considered that?

Most experts have, yes. Trump is still in a zone where re-election cannot be ruled out. He's doing better than Truman, who famously won re-election despite widespread belief he was going to lose (though in fairness, his GOP opponent was a tool who did not campaign that much against him, thinking he had the election in the bag... sound familiar?).

Trump has incumbency with all the free press that comes with it, though. His actions have not pissed off enough people for him to be a guaranteed loser.

Barring a really good Democratic opponent, there are two things I can see that would realistically sink Trump 2020: a bad economy, because that sinks nearly any President, or some amnesty initiative. Even the MAGA people (including Breitbart) were furious when rumors were going around he cut a deal with the Democrats to grant legal status to the Dreamers.

Let's be frank here. There are both economic and racist parts to the Trump base. If the economy slumps, he will be declared a failure by the people who thought he would better the economy, and they just may not vote or go to the Democrats. If he does something popular with the general public like grant legal status to Dreamers, he will alienate the shitlord part of his base and lose their support.

While Trump comes off as an idiot, we must note he's not completely stupid. He acts the way he does because he's used to winning no matter what. But I have no doubt he understands he cannot afford to lose his base; he can still win so long as he has them, even if he pisses everyone else off.

***

Now, as for the unthinkable: there are pros and cons to a Trump victory. The cons are obvious: a manchild continues to rule us for 4 years, alienating our allies, ruining our diplomatic credibility, and pushing racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic policies, all while nominating yes-men to the Supreme Court to enforce these.

One hypothetical pro to a Trump win is the large segment of his supporters who are armed to the teeth will have no reason to think the elections were rigged, which will stave off civil unrest. I'm honestly terrified what might happen if he loses, because he will undoubtedly refuse to accept the result, and we'd be looking at around a fifth of the American population, many of them armed, contesting the result. The worst Antifa or #NotMyPresident could do will quite likely pale in comparison to whatever the more rabid segments of Trump's camp will do if they're denied their man.

A more concrete pro is the benefits that will accrue to Democrats. Under Obama, the Democrats lost over a thousand seats nationwide. This sort of effect comes naturally; the President's party loses seats while they hold the White House. An unpopular Trump Presidency presents an opportunity to scoop up a considerable amount of seats around the country, so the next Democratic President, likely to be elected in 2024, has a strong hand.

What's more, if the Senate falls to the Democrats this year, however low a prospect that is, it effectively neuters Trump's ability to put lunatics in high offices. He will have to put moderates in judicial positions and in the Cabinet, mitigating the damage he can do.

12 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

It could happen especially if the democratic side rigs the election again. People are tired of voting against the lesser of two evils.

That's an unlikely scenario. Superdelegates have largely been gutted as part of the reforms for the 2020 race, and no Democrat looms over the race like Clinton did. Clinton is extremely unlikely to run again, Biden and Bernie are too old, and Michelle Obama has no interest in running. It's a fairly level field for a change, with a lot of potential names that are going to create some serious energy in the campaign.

12 hours ago, KHCast said:

Exactly where is this proof they did it the first time and are set to do it again?

I think he's referring to the huge bias the Dem establishment had towards Clinton, what with superdelegates ignoring how their state felt about the candidates, all of them throwing their support by Clinton early on, DNC officials privately mentioning their dislike for Bernie, and then the way the media was reporting Clinton's superdelegates as if they were final counts.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

@Bergamo (Ogilvie) My problem with your assessment is that it feels like you’re glossing over the possibility that Trump will just declare himself president for life and thus render any chance of a Democratic president null and void. It feels like more and more that your assessments are becoming more based on the ideal situation rather than what might actually happen due to the insanity of the GOP and Russian interference.

Granted I’m hoping that somehow someway things turn out all right and I’m not gonna stop fighting against the GOP, but when you bring up stuff like this, it feels like you keep expecting our enemy to play by our rules.

[Tornado]

2 hours ago, SenEDDtor Missile said:

@Bergamo (Ogilvie) My problem with your assessment is that it feels like you’re glossing over the possibility that Trump will just declare himself president for life and thus render any chance of a Democratic president null and void.

Glossing over the possibility of something requires there to be any possibility of it all.

[Tani Coyote]

4 hours ago, SenEDDtor Missile said:

@Bergamo (Ogilvie) My problem with your assessment is that it feels like you’re glossing over the possibility that Trump will just declare himself president for life and thus render any chance of a Democratic president null and void. It feels like more and more that your assessments are becoming more based on the ideal situation rather than what might actually happen due to the insanity of the GOP and Russian interference.

Granted I’m hoping that somehow someway things turn out all right and I’m not gonna stop fighting against the GOP, but when you bring up stuff like this, it feels like you keep expecting our enemy to play by our rules.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Tornado here. I get it's easy to think everything is hopeless, but this is contrary to reality. It's not "idealism," it's just how things go.

The United States survived the Revolution, the Depression and the Civil War without collapsing into tyranny, and those were the best opportunities for it to happen. Everything Putin can do pales in comparison to the anarchy and opportunity for rapid degeneration that political and economic collapse provide.

If Trump declared himself President for life, odds are Congress would remove him and the Secret Service would drag him kicking and screaming from the White House as Pence took the oath of office. If Trump ran for a third term, the same would happen because his term would quite likely be invalidated by Congress when the votes were counted. And, even if this all fails, odds are a shitload of Americans (including a fair number of soldiers, who are not all hopelessly conservative) are going to call shenanigans at that point and we will have a full blown civil war on our hands.

The only "insanity" here is the idea that American politicians are some hive mind rather than a complex network of varying interests that ultimately explain why despite a near-monopoly on power by the GOP, they have accomplished so little.

Of course, in that misconstruction of American politics lays the answer here. Look at the net worth of your typical member of Congress. It is in the seven digits. They are vested members of a wealthy elite, and wealth accumulates best with stability. This is why the GOP and Democrats have cooperated very well to keep some of Trump's more destabilizing policies from going through; if they can agree on one thing, it is preserving the value of their assets. They will not let Trump stay in power forever, because it will destabilize everything.

Niccolo Machiavelli is most famous for the Prince, but in the Discourses, he discussed the nature of republics and how they collapse. I think his assessment rings true to this day: they collapse because the people themselves have become corrupt and cease to care about the republic. A further point he made is the impossibility of corrupting a republic within a generation; a strong republic can easily weather a wannabe tyrant every so often. This is because the masses and their representatives are willing to resist the tyrant, no matter the promised rewards. While Trump's super loyal base may be concerning, it only amounts to around 20% of the country at most. Even a lot of the people who support him fully acknowledge he is a liar and are giving him relatively timid support due a conservative leaning; attempts for him to legitimately usurp the Constitution could very well alienate them.        

Now, I get it's a typical reaction to say "but the GOP isn't doing anything!" but that's just an oversimplification. Of course they're going along with anti-LGBT policies, and anti-immigrant policies, and anti-marijuana policies, and tax cuts, and all the rest, because that's what the GOP wanted to begin with. That same GOP has also put limits on Trump's ability to negotiate with Russia, has mulled over the concept of giving the special counsel legal protection from firing, has overwhelmingly passed resolutions reaffirming support to NATO (and an insistence they will challenge any attempt to withdraw from NATO), and has created its fair share of critics who say Trump has no idea what the fuck he's talking about half the time, but hey, he's useful for signing long-awaited conservative items.

Trump has been in office for less than two years. A lot of the other people in Washington have been there for decades. They know how to handle this idiot.

[Tani Coyote]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/politics/barack-obama-midterm-endorsements/index.html

Yet more reason to not fear Trump's autocratic ambitions. Obama is not taking the Trump term lying down, and is putting his young age to good use, namely, by endorsing 81 Democratic candidates, and this is just the first wave.

This is quite possibly one of the best ways for him to influence politics after leaving office. It lets him use his influence without becoming polarizing, as running for another office would cause.

Now I highly expect right wing backlash, demanding he stay out of politics because of tradition, but let's be honest, tradition means jack shit in the age of Trump.

Never mind conservative outlets have a nasty habit of whining about evil Hollywood liberals when they speak out, demanding they stay silent, but celebrate when a conservative actor speaks out. It's hypocrisy. Be consistent.

[TailsTellsTales]

14 hours ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

That's an unlikely scenario. Superdelegates have largely been gutted as part of the reforms for the 2020 race, and no Democrat looms over the race like Clinton did. Clinton is extremely unlikely to run again, Biden and Bernie are too old, and Michelle Obama has no interest in running. It's a fairly level field for a change, with a lot of potential names that are going to create some serious energy in the campaign.

Really? Age discrimination? There is nothing in the law that says older people can not run. How about instead of focusing on age of a candidate, people focus on the actual policies proposed by the candidate? Be against somebody because you disagree with their policy not because "He's too old." because that is age discrimination. Nelson Mandela became president of South Africa at age 77 years old.

[Tani Coyote]

13 minutes ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Really? Age discrimination? There is nothing in the law that says older people can not run. How about instead of focusing on age of a candidate, people focus on the actual policies proposed by the candidate? Be against somebody because you disagree with their policy not because "He's too old." because that is age discrimination. Nelson Mandela became president of South Africa at age 77 years old.

Nothing in the law, sure, but there was nothing in the law saying Trump could not either.

If you can't see why age discrimination is not inherently invalid, I don't know what I can say. The American Presidency (which I'd wager is quite different from the South African Presidency) is one of the most stressful jobs in the world, doubling the rate of aging due to it all. And if the President croaks or becomes sickly, the VP choice becomes far more important.

What's more, the VP is normally used to pander to a base besides the President's to build a winning coalition. Read: you don't want the VP to become President. Ever. Likewise, there's always a good chance for Congress to flip during a midterm, which would put the opposition in a position to pick the next VP, which can be an important position from time to time.

So sorry, but older candidates are rightly marked down a bit for age. If Bernie was made the Presidential candidate, odds are he would tap a moderate who would have a good chance of becoming President and might just sink a lot of progressive proposals and who would need to get a conservative VP past a GOP Senate.

Honestly, the fact Bernie has been deified is one of the greatest political strategic blunders I've seen. He won't be around forever, and if his ideas are going to last, it's better to put younger candidates with them in the spotlight, not him.

Let's remember here: not all discrimination is inherently invalid. It's weird when men are the primary speakers at women's conventions (and this is precisely why only a handful are invited to speak). It's weird when white people sit in the front row at African American-focused events. And while ageism can absolutely be horrible due to stereotype threat, this is the US Presidency we are talking about here. It's all about risk avoidance. Ronald Reagan started developing Alzheimer's during his term. Why take the risk of another elderly President having the same? Sure, an old President can be healthy, have a sharp mind, all the great stuff... but science doesn't lie here. Older people, unfortunately, have far greater odds of developing this or that health issue.

And when you're the most powerful person in the world, that is one less thing you should have to worry about.

Seriously. There's a far cry between "people in their mid to upper 70s probably aren't the best choice for President due to health risks" and "old people can't do anything." Do you want 60 year olds forming the bulk of the military?

[TailsTellsTales]

4 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Nothing in the law, sure, but there was nothing in the law saying Trump could not either.

If you can't see why age discrimination is not inherently invalid, I don't know what I can say. The American Presidency (which I'd wager is quite different from the South African Presidency) is one of the most stressful jobs in the world, doubling the rate of aging due to it all. And if the President croaks or becomes sickly, the VP choice becomes far more important.

What's more, the VP is normally used to pander to a base besides the President's to build a winning coalition. Read: you don't want the VP to become President. Ever. Likewise, there's always a good chance for Congress to flip during a midterm, which would put the opposition in a position to pick the next VP, which can be an important position from time to time.

So sorry, but older candidates are rightly marked down a bit for age. If Bernie was made the Presidential candidate, odds are he would tap a moderate who would have a good chance of becoming President and might just sink a lot of progressive proposals and who would need to get a conservative VP past a GOP Senate.

Honestly, the fact Bernie has been deified is one of the greatest political strategic blunders I've seen. He won't be around forever, and if his ideas are going to last, it's better to put younger candidates with them in the spotlight, not him.

Yep you definitely have very strong age bias unfortunately. It does not matter how stressful the job is or being one of the most stressful jobs. The fact is older people have as much to contribute to society as younger people.

Also Sanders is not your normal politician. He would put a strong progressive candidate as his vice president if he ran.

The reason people treat Sanders deity like is because he was the first candidate in a very long time to say and propose things that no other democrat would ever dare say. He challenged the establishment. He refused corporate money from wall street and raised his funds off regular people.

I personally fell for Sanders when I saw him give a speech and saying he did not want wall street money. And on another personal note he exposed the democrats for what they are, people who only want to help the rich while giving incremental change to the poor.

Under Obama who was a center right president economically speaking, he gave massive tax cuts to the rich like Trump did, like Bush did, and bailed out wall street like Bush did, and was pushing for another horrific free trade deal like Clinton did. Income inequality got horrifically worse under Obama and these constant massive tax cuts for the rich that the last 3 presidents have done only made income inequality worse.

[Tornado]

8 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

 It does not matter how stressful the job is or being one of the most stressful jobs. The fact is older people have as much to contribute to society as younger people.

Not when they are dead. There were serious concerns (partisan ones mostly, granted) of whether Reagan had the full control of his mental faculties by the end of his second term after a couple of incidents, and he was only a little bit older than Sanders and Biden are now when his presidency ended.

[RedFox99]

8 minutes ago, Tornado said:

Not when they are dead. There were serious concerns (partisan ones mostly, granted) of whether Reagan had the full control of his mental faculties by the end of his second term after a couple of incidents, and he was only a little bit older than Sanders and Biden are now when his presidency ended.

I do see what you mean; however, this makes me wonder if we should lower the minimum age for being president to maybe 30 years.

[Tani Coyote]

16 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Yep you definitely have very strong age bias unfortunately. It does not matter how stressful the job is or being one of the most stressful jobs. The fact is older people have as much to contribute to society as younger people.

You say "bias" like it's inherently a bad thing, completely ignoring that I gave several cases where bias is actually logical.

The elderly have their place in society, but to ignore the serious health risks they have is doing a disservice to our whole community. Any President is likely to serve 8 years, which is equivalent to 16 years and all the health declines that come with it. Again: would you want a military made up entirely of seniors? What about 12 year olds? No? I wonder why that is? Could it be that maybe bias isn't this bogeyman and sometimes people just aren't the best pick for something?

Instead of equality for equality's sake (which, by the way, is increasingly a right wing idea, rather than a progressive one; progressives focus on equity), let's consider the extremely high chance any older President is likely to develop mental or physical health issues that could impede their performance or pass power to the VP.

Odds are when you cast your ballot, you're not really voting for the VP. You're voting for the top of the ticket.

Besides, this is the leader of our state, the most powerful person in the world by many analyses. This isn't the place to make a progressive statement, but to pick someone who offers the least risk and maximum reward. Don't pick someone solely because of their demographic but because of what they bring to the table. And unfortunately for you, no matter how you slice it, an old person brings health risks to the table. It's part of aging. It's not like we're immortal here.

16 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Also Sanders is not your normal politician. He would put a strong progressive candidate as his vice president if he ran.

Which is basically why the Party is interested in crushing him. They want to win. And Democrats need to court moderates more than Republicans do.

This is also why he will quite likely lose any primary regardless of how supportive the establishment is, because primary voters will moderate the result. For every progressive who has won, there are plenty who have not.

16 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

Under Obama who was a center right president economically speaking, he gave massive tax cuts to the rich like Trump did, like Bush did, and bailed out wall street like Bush did, and was pushing for another horrific free trade deal like Clinton did.

I know I'm honestly going in circles but, again, for someone who keeps raising issues on how awful the Democrats are for the poor, you keep overlooking the fact the problem isn't free trade, it's capitalism. Our system is not designed to capture the fattened profit margins free trade brings. It would be better to have policy reforms in that direction than artificially creating jobs through protectionism.

Instead of considering economists some capitalist conspiracy, let's consider maybe they know what they're talking about when they argue free trade has the most potential benefits in quality of life, allowing the most goods at the best quality and lowest prices.

7 hours ago, RedFox99 said:

I do see what you mean; however, this makes me wonder if we should lower the minimum age for being president to maybe 30 years.

A noble effort, but it would not make any difference. Your typical Presidential candidate is 50+ in spite of the low threshold of 35.

Although, I think the age limit is actually there to give us an idea what the Framers had in mind. Notice that a Representative's minimum is 25 and Senator's 30. That seems like blatant signaling to me that they hoped all Presidents would serve first as Representatives, then as Senators, building up a solid decade of experience on Capitol Hill before moving into the White House. An understandable assessment as well, since most of them had different ideas on the Presidency (which was more limited) than what we do.

And honestly, after Trump, I think we should amend the constitution to require some measure of political experience before one can be elected or serve.

[TailsTellsTales]

58 minutes ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

The elderly have their place in society, but to ignore the serious health risks they have is doing a disservice to our whole community. Any President is likely to serve 8 years, which is equivalent to 16 years and all the health declines that come with it. Again: would you want a military made up entirely of seniors? What about 12 year olds? No? I wonder why that is? Could it be that maybe bias isn't this bogeyman and sometimes people just aren't the best pick for something?

I am going to have respectfully disagree on this. The fact of the matter is you value age of a candidate before policy because you are concerned about their health even though these people are voluntarily running for president knowing the demand it requires for the job? Also seniors are not supposed to be in the military however that does not mean they will not be able to kick butt once they are 60 70 and etc from their military training. If somebody who is 70 80 90 years old wants to be president, then they should be allowed to. They have vice president for a reason. Older presidents have benefits since most have wisdom, vast knowledge, and experience to handle the stresses and pressure of a presidency that a younger person will struggle with.

1 hour ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

Which is basically why the Party is interested in crushing him. They want to win. And Democrats need to court moderates more than Republicans do.

This why democrats keep losing in the first place. They keep only wanting to move further and further and further right instead of standing up for values which they seem to have lost.

1 hour ago, Bergamo (Ogilvie) said:

This is also why he will quite likely lose any primary regardless of how supportive the establishment is, because primary voters will moderate the result. For every progressive who has won, there are plenty who have not.

This false. The progressive movement is still in the beginning stages. It's not like the tea party either, progressives have to fight the media and the establishment. They are slowly beginning to take over the democratic party since third parties can not be done.

And the trade thing already went over and will respectfully disagree about free trade being good thing. I taken Geography class and saw the devastation that free trade has caused in various countries. I will never see a banana the same again.

[Tara]

4 hours ago, TailsTellsTales said:

I am going to have respectfully disagree on this. The fact of the matter is you value age of a candidate before policy because you are concerned about their health even though these people are voluntarily running for president knowing the demand it requires for the job? Also seniors are not supposed to be in the military however that does not mean they will not be able to kick butt once they are 60 70 and etc from their military training. If somebody who is 70 80 90 years old wants to be president, then they should be allowed to. They have vice president for a reason. Older presidents have benefits since most have wisdom, vast knowledge, and experience to handle the stresses and pressure of a presidency that a younger person will struggle with. 

I'm sorry, but you do realize there's an enormous difference between saying "he's disentitled due to his age" and "due to his age, there are concerns that must be addressed," right?  You're twisting people's words in order to fit within an anti-discrimination speech that, while well-meaning, is hardly even applicable to the actual conversation.  Like, seriously, all this because of a comment that said Biden and Bernie are (of their own volition) most likely not going to to run because of their age.