Here are a few examples of the kind of smear tactics the democrats employed against John McCain in 2008. Not to worry though, I am sure our friends at Google and other Silicon Valley lefties will scrub the internet clean of any stories which include democrats saying McCain's age was a dis-qualifier. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/15/mccain.age/index.html Analysis: Age an issue in the 2008 campaign? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Is Sen. John McCain too old to be president? Listen to some Democrats, and you'll think the 71-year-old Arizona senator is a man lost in a perpetual fog. He is "confused" and has "lost his bearings" or is "out of touch." Listen to the McCain campaign, and you'll be convinced that Democrats are using those terms to exploit concerns that the presumptive Republican nominee is too old to effectively serve as president. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/is_mccain_too_old_to_be_presid.html You often hear the complaint that modern political campaigns are too nasty, which is often true. But it's also often true that they are too polite. So we're fortunate when someone violates the prevailing etiquette, forcing candidates and voters to confront matters we'd rather not but should. One of those moments came the other day when Sen. John McCain visited a New Hampshire high school and took questions. One brave youngster asked him, as courteously as possible, if at 71, he might be too old for the job he's seeking. McCain scoffed, saying, "I work 24/7, I'm very active, I enjoy life," and bragging that he's always outcampaigned his opponents. He closed by joking, "Thanks for the question, you little jerk. You're drafted." But the student raised an important question that many of his elders have been strangely unwilling to pursue. It may seem rude and even cruel to say that someone is simply too old to be entrusted with the presidency. But in McCain's case, by any sensible standard, it's also true. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/31/upshot/how-old-is-too-old-for-president-depends-whos-running.html Before the 2008 presidential campaign, for example, Democrats were much more likely to raise concerns about electing an older presidential candidate. A February 2007 Pew poll showed, for instance, that 60 percent of Democrats said they would be less likely to support presidential candidates in their 70s — far more than Republicans (42 percent) and independents (43 percent). These differences were presumably related to the prospects of John McCain, a top Republican presidential contender who would have been 72 when he took office. It’s not surprising, then, that 36 percent of Democrats said Mr. McCain was too old to be president in a September 2008 Pew poll compared with 21 percent of independents and 11 percent of Republicans.
IBM used to have a policy where the CEO had to be less than 55 years of age. Personally, I agree with that policy for all critical positions, from politics to public company management to millitary leadership. It is too often we see older people cling to what worked for them in the past and not fully appreciate or implement relevant new ideas. In addition, I believe the age of majority should be lowered to 12 for such purposes as voting, fulltime employment, millitary service, and marriage. Young adults are smarter and more perceptive than they are given credit for. And yes, I know most are not ready for marriage or other citizenship level reponsibilities at 12, although some have been. It is my understanding in some cultures one is considered an adult at 13. Our legal system has repeatedly recognized those younger than the age of majority as being able to be tried as adults as well. I believe by allowing younger people to have more real responsibility earlier in life, we will get better citizens in the long run. We need to modernize our school practices to properly reflect the actual learning capability of the younger generation, business and societal needs, and increased computer and communications technology. Most of our public schools are currently babysitting and indoctrination facilities that don’t adequately prepare our children for being adequately ready for employment or being smart consumers. Based on analysis of quite a few top achievers in various disciplines, it can be seen that as children, top performers started in some way at 4 years old. Therefore, it seem reasonable to start school for children at 4 years old and have their grade schooling continue to 12 years old for eight years of hopefully, quality education. There are some obvious downsides to lowering the age of majority to 12 years old. Many 12 year olds in the US are currently not very knowledgable or mature. They are very impressionable and can be be easily misled. The Radical Leftists have been exploiting these facts for years for their long term plan of gaining political control of the United States and other countries. However, the sense of justice and honesty in material things tends is very high in young people. Long term meta analysis suggests allowing younger people to participate in our system will be a net benefit for Conservative principles at the cost of short term political power, in my opinion. The key here is reinforcing our constitutional protections before lowering the voting age to limit the damage Radical Leftists may cause. There would probably need to be a separate entity, not subject to Congressional or executive control, that would have enforcement capabilities if our constitutional rights are ever threatened by our politicians. Overall, I believe should the US decide to cater to the greatest common denominator instead of the least common denominator as is the current practice, our society, economy, and national security would benefit greatly over the long term.
I do think, though, that it is worth mentioning one obvious factor that is important in the various debates about whether a person is too old or not. And that is in regard to whether the person being discussed was ever competent at any time in their earlier life. Sure, it is fact that high performers lose their edge and that is not pretty. Generals lose their abilities, lose command presence, etc. Sages and pundits may lose their ability to pund- although might find lesser roles as board members, visiting professors etc. But seriously, Biden has been an idiot all of his life. He has run for president 2-3 times before and always said stupid things and never, ever got more than 1% of the vote in any primary, anywhere, at anytime. So he does not really fall into the category of a great corporate leader or public official who needs to be examined carefully to see whether he has lost his edge. I am here to tell you that Biden is absolutely at the top of his game and as sharp as he has ever been. And that ain't pretty.
He's never had the opportunity to follow someone who says things as retarded as Trump, he had to run against intelligent people in the past. He's in the middle and if they are smart enough to give him the nomination he will crush Trump in the general.
I see. And the only way that Biden will be running against Trump is if he beats all the other dems in the primary who apparently are not as bright and competent as Biden per your scenario. Might want to tidy that theory up a bit before taking it out on the road. The correct theory to help you with your narrative would be to argue that Joe is an idiot but the average dem voter is not bright enough for that to even matter if he offers lots of free stuff so he may very well end out with the nomination. You are welcome. You can thank me later.
That's why I said give him the nomination. Seriously I want to know, do you think Trump could beat Biden in a general? I live in Texas and even hard core republicans know that talking about investigating SNL etc. etc. is just a thin skinned really sad man. If you give them someone in the center they will do it, they want out of this embarrassment too.
Yes. I do- and i am not a conservative just saying that Trump cannot be beat. Trump is vulnerable -but mostly just based on the general atmospherics that both candidates face...ie. traditional state strongholds are purple now rather than red or blue, both parties have voters who are seriously disenchanted with their party, and elections just tend to be ungodly close fairly often in the country due to the divided nature of the country. Both candidates are vulnerable. No coronations or Reagan landslides coming any time soon. If I were Trump I would be watching out for Booker and the white woman he will pick if nominated. If Booker doesnt start running for the presidency of veneuela he probably will be able to do some damage and hold on to the progressive vote. I dont know. It is too early to know how much some of these candidates will have to disgrace themselves to get the nomination. The problem with Biden is that in the end the progressive voters will not be excited about him, will see him as another betrayal as Bernie experienced- and some of them will not only not be motivated to get out to vote but will flat out speak against him. You know where we ended out in 2016- with Bernie supporters chanting "lock her up" to Hillary. Not good. If you proposed a scenario where Biden won and then all the other pieces of the scattered and shattered democratic party rallied and lined up behind him then that would be a powerful block. It would also be a powerful fantasy- not going to happen. Give it a couple months. Most of us here know the story on Joe. He is a happy warrior, a regular elks club kind of guy...etc. etc. After having to put up with all of the scratchy bitches like Hillary and Warren etc it is nice to have Joe show up and say some stupid things and talk about the old days in Scranton, Pa. and watch some black and white tv with the crazy uncle for a day or two. But a little bit of Joe goes a long way. It's nice to see him go after a little while too.
Wow, a well thought out and reasonable response, didn't expect that. I think Booker is a goofball with no real shot, but that may just be me. I like to think that most conservatives realize that Trump was a so so to not so good businessman and a terrible person but put up with that because they like the policies he's trying to implement, not sure I am right about that either. The problem with Biden I think is the length of the election cycle and the far left faction. I also think he resonates fairly well and would do well against Trump, I'm just not sure the left wants to compromise at this point. The far right will destroy the country or the far left will, not sure it matters at this point, neither party gives a shit about fiscal responsibility, but at least the left had good intentions in many instances.