2020 Democratic Nominee

[David Dennison 19441]

38 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

That would be a sick burn, but well, you know.

[Ghost of LL 15664]

51 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Well for most of America's existence being 70 and functional wasn't really an option. But we've been ruled by old white people for roughly 98% of our history.

That's not really true.  Life expectancy was low in the era before vaccines because of high infant- and child-mortality rates.  But once one grew into adulthood, attaining age 70 wasn't unusual.

Of the first five presidents, only one died before age 70--Washington lived to be 67, Adams lived to be 91, Jefferson lived to be 83, Madison lived to be 86, and Monroe lived to be 73.  In point of fact, most of the presidents--25 of the 45--lived past the age of 70.  And of those who didn't, four were assassinated and one is still living and hasn't yet reached age 70.  So we're really talking about 20 of the 45 who didn't live to see age 70.

So yeah--your snarky point doesn't hold water.

[bad_teammate 13480]

It's not just about technically being alive, but vital enough to be considered worthy by the populace.

70 in 2019 is not the same as 70 in 1910 or 1830, and the popularity of septuagenarian candidates should be all the evidence you need to establish that as an obvious reality.

Otherwise, what's your explanation? What's the point you're making?

[Js1 86943]

That there’s an infinitely better crop of candidates between 37 and 70 but we are focused on candidates either too old or too young because they are white and therefore are worthy of our votes. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Js1

[bad_teammate 13480]

Who are the better candidates?

[Js1 86943]

It’s 6am in India and I’m jet lagged and not going to be dragged into you brandishing your saber sword at me over Bernie. 

Ive said what I’ve said and I ain’t saying no more.  The other campaigns have a lot of work to do to draw Harris supporters/staff. Because they treated her like garbage.  

And fuck Bloomberg and Steyer. Go away. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Js1

[Pancho 46054]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It’s 6am in India and I’m jet lagged and not going to be dragged into you brandishing your saber sword at me over Bernie. 

Ive said what I’ve said and I ain’t saying no more.  The other campaigns have a lot of work to do to draw Harris supporters/staff. Because they treated her like garbage.  

And fuck Bloomberg and Steyer. Go away. 

[Dropout 355]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who are the better candidates?

The imaginary ones.

[pepper brooks 580]

Tulsi processed heels up harris at that debate and she was freaking doa. Maybe dumbass Harris shouldn’t have hired a bunch of Hillary hangers on who lose elections if she had any shot. Her whole campaign was nothing more than, “I’m like Obama but have a vagina”.  Terrible  campaign.  

[tx 3 putt 78470]

9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Who are the better candidates?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Props to Kamala for hanging it up and not being a grifting media whore like these other jokers.

[bad_teammate 13480]

Doesn't even have to be about Bernie. Which of the younger candidates is better than Warren?

[Ghost of LL 15664]

23 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It's not just about technically being alive, but vital enough to be considered worthy by the populace.

70 in 2019 is not the same as 70 in 1910 or 1830, and the popularity of septuagenarian candidates should be all the evidence you need to establish that as an obvious reality.

Otherwise, what's your explanation? What's the point you're making?

Jesus, man--read Adams' correspondence with Jefferson.  They were plenty vital well past the age of 70.  

The real difference is that people didn't wait until age 70 to run for president.  If you got to age 70 and wanted to be president, you had either run before or had long before been deemed by your party not to be a viable candidate.  In either event, it wasn't a matter of being "vital enough to be considered worthy by the populace."  It was a matter of having been vetted by the party two decades earlier.

Now, with direct primaries, you have assholes who sit in the Senate for a generation doing fuck-all who then decide "hey, I want to run for president."  It's bullshit.

[Js1 86943]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Jesus, man--read Adams' correspondence with Jefferson.  They were plenty vital well past the age of 70.  

The real difference is that people didn't wait until age 70 to run for president.  If you got to age 70 and wanted to be president, you had either run before or had long before been deemed by your party not to be a viable candidate.  In either event, it wasn't a matter of being "vital enough to be considered worthy by the populace."  It was a matter of having been vetted by the party two decades earlier.

Now, with direct primaries, you have assholes who sit in the Senate for a generation doing fuck-all who then decide "hey, I want to run for president."  It's bullshit.

[bad_teammate 13480]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It was a matter of having been vetted by the party two decades earlier.

What does this mean?

Quote

Now, with direct primaries, you have assholes who sit in the Senate for a generation doing fuck-all who then decide "hey, I want to run for president."  It's bullshit.

Even if we take that framing, why would it even matter how old they are?

What is your complaint? Are you mad because a candidate you like is failing?

[GSU&UT 1799]

16 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

Maybe dumbass Harris shouldn’t have hired a bunch of Hillary hangers on who lose elections

This mostly is it imo. She tried to at first run on a more leftist campaign then quickly pivoted to the center for most issues and refused to address her prosecutorial past that Tulsi was able to so clearly pick at.

[henrygandorf 29221]

10 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It was a matter of having been vetted by the party two decades earlier.

two decades ago warren was a republican and bernie was an independent (is he still technically?)

[HRSchenker 2331]

I think it's safe to say that this is Elizabeth Warren's nomination to lose. Bernie won't crack the top 2 and those voters won't vote for Biden once he drops out. 

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

I love Julian

 

Wow what a stupid tweet. Does Nate not realize that Barack Obama won Iowa and split the delegate total with the eventual 2016 nominee in New Hampshire?

[bad_teammate 13480]

1 minute ago, HRSchenker said:

Does Nate not realize that Barack Obama won Iowa and split the delegate total with the eventual 2016 nominee in New Hampshire?

This doesn't prove what you think it does.

It takes a Barack Obama level political talent for a black person to win these states. It takes Rick Santorum for a white person to win them.

[Js1 86943]

Iowa/NH = perfect first 2 states for the GOP primary 

Iowa/NH = looks nothing like the Democratic primary electorate, which is why it should be a large or medium size diverse state first. 

[Pancho 46054]

27 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

Tulsi processed heels up harris at that debate and she was freaking doa. Maybe dumbass Harris shouldn’t have hired a bunch of Hillary hangers on who lose elections if she had any shot. Her whole campaign was nothing more than, “I’m like Obama but have a vagina”.  Terrible  campaign.  

None of this is why her campaign didn’t take off.  

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

The ageism is strong tonight. 

[henrygandorf 29221]

2 minutes ago, Pancho said:

None of this is why her campaign didn’t take off.  

i can only assume the real reasons are (1) the media (2) the voters and (3) pete's racism.

[bad_teammate 13480]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The ageism is strong tonight. 

If you can't say, "I'm mad because my more conservative candidate isn't doing well" out loud then you've got to find something to say.

[henrygandorf 29221]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The ageism is strong tonight. 

i don't consider myself ageist, but i did see bernie sanders writing a check at the grocery store today.

[Js1 86943]

1 minute ago, henrygandorf said:

i don't consider myself ageist, but i did see bernie sanders writing a check at the grocery store today.

[workswithseed 2201]

1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

That's not really true.  Life expectancy was low in the era before vaccines because of high infant- and child-mortality rates.  But once one grew into adulthood, attaining age 70 wasn't unusual.

Of the first five presidents, only one died before age 70--Washington lived to be 67, Adams lived to be 91, Jefferson lived to be 83, Madison lived to be 86, and Monroe lived to be 73.  In point of fact, most of the presidents--25 of the 45--lived past the age of 70.  And of those who didn't, four were assassinated and one is still living and hasn't yet reached age 70.  So we're really talking about 20 of the 45 who didn't live to see age 70.

So yeah--your snarky point doesn't hold water.

Washington could have lived longer if they didn't drain all that blood.

[bad_teammate 13480]

Js1 is too busy to make a list of candidates under 70 who are better than Liz and Bernie, but not too busy to find and post gifs.

It's early in India.

lol

[henrygandorf 29221]

it got fucking dark here today at 4:15pm.  we all have problems.

[Js1 86943]

Ok boomer 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Oprah Winfrey would be over 70 by the end of her first term but everyone thought she would be the perfect candidate. 

[Pancho 46054]

8 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i can only assume the real reasons are (1) the media (2) the voters and (3) pete's racism.

2 of 3 plus other stuff.

 

Pete has a race issue, but I don’t think he’s racist or exhibited racism.

[workswithseed 2201]

13 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This doesn't prove what you think it does.

It takes a Barack Obama level political talent for a black person to win these states. It takes Rick Santorum for a white person to win them.

Yeah, so they're racists, but not that racist?

[HRSchenker 2331]

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This doesn't prove what you think it does.

It takes a Barack Obama level political talent for a black person to win these states. It takes Rick Santorum for a white person to win them.

Forgive me for holding our politicians to the high standard of Barack Obama

[Ghost of LL 15664]

Just now, bad_teammate said:

What does this mean?

It means that you're dead wrong in everything you have written on this thread.

You wrote: "*looks at headshots of America's presidents*," implying that American presidents have routinely been septuagenarians.

I pointed out that's not true.

You wrote: "for most of America's existence being 70 and functional wasn't really an option."

I pointed out that's not true.

You then wrote: "It's not just about technically being alive, but vital enough to be considered worthy by the populace."

I pointed out that previous presidents were plenty vital at age 70, and that being vital enough to be considered worthy by the populace wasn't the issue.

Now, in true BT form, you say "what's your point" or "what does this mean," trying to ignore the wrongness of everything you've just written.

What it means is what I wrote at the outset of this little dialogue--it is absurd that our choice is limited to three septuagenarians.  It's ridiculous.  It's stupid.  And it's unprecedented.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[henrygandorf 29221]

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oprah Winfrey would be over 70 by the end of her first term but everyone thought she would be the perfect candidate. 

she'd be the perfect ultra-left-wing progressive socialist candidate, the way she gives everyone everything for free.

 

[Ghost of LL 15664]

19 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The ageism is strong tonight. 

Ok, boomer.

[workswithseed 2201]

11 minutes ago, Pancho said:

2 of 3 plus other stuff.

 

Pete has a race issue, but I don’t think he’s racist or exhibited racism.

Why do you think that is?

[henrygandorf 29221]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

while it's a typical classy move from liz - and mostly accurate - none of those 4 are/were serious candidates, and i'm totally ok with steyer and bloomberg spending a bunch of cash to run ads trashing trump.

[6th Street 6655]

Nobody forced those shitty candidates out of the election. 

[bad_teammate 13480]

26 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

What it means is what I wrote at the outset of this little dialogue--it is absurd that our choice is limited to three septuagenarians.  It's ridiculous.  It's stupid.  And it's unprecedented.

It was also unprecedented for a black man to win the nomination. It was also unprecedented for a woman to win the nomination. It's unprecedented for a Jew to be in a strong position to get the nomination.

Unprecedented is not the same thing as ridiculous and stupid.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Oprah Winfrey would be over 70 by the end of her first term but everyone thought she would be the perfect candidate. 

No one serious thought that.

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Doesn't even have to be about Bernie. Which of the younger candidates is better than Warren?

I know this is a trap, but I like Booker better than Warren. 

[bad_teammate 13480]

In terms of policy or electability or... what?

Those two aren't really in the same lanes ideology/policy-wise.

Now, why so many are geeked up for Buttigieg over Booker? That's an interesting one.

[tantric superman 4668]

 

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

Doesn't even have to be about Bernie. Which of the younger candidates is better than Warren?

All of them. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by tantric superman

[Ghost of LL 15664]

It was also unprecedented for a black man to win the nomination. It was also unprecedented for a woman to win the nomination. It's unprecedented for a Jew to be in a strong position to get the nomination.
Unprecedented is not the same thing as ridiculous and stupid.

I know. That’s why I said it was ridiculous and stupid and unprecedented. I’m not in the habit of being redundant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bad_teammate 13480]

1 minute ago, tantric superman said:

Booker, Mayor PeteB

If your ideology is libertarian/right/center-right, then I agree.

1 minute ago, Ghost of LL said:

I know. That’s why I said it was ridiculous and stupid and unprecedented. I’m not in the habit of being redundant.

Why "stupid"?

Why "ridiculous"?

[tantric superman 4668]

I think because in every other area of endeavor over 70 isn't the sweet spot for success, or capability.

[bad_teammate 13480]

6 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

I think because in every other area of endeavor over 70 isn't the sweet spot for success, or capability.

In a generalized sense, sure, but in a case-by-case, not necessarily.

Luckily for us, we're not picking between Generic 50-year-old, Generic 40-year-old, and Generic 70-year-old. We have individual humans to consider.