Sunday, February 24, 2019

Please please please not Bernie or Biden (also, think carefully about Klobuchar)

There are ten thousand horrifying gifts regarding Trump's manifest unfitness for office. High up in the ranks of unfitness, because it's objective, is his age as the oldest president ever to assume office tied with his concealment of his health and mental health status. Why then would Democrats choose to nominate someone who is even older? Bernie and Biden are four and three years older than Trump respectively, and at that age that difference counts.

It's easy for me to say this in part because I'm not big fan of either men. Elizabeth Warren is three years younger than Trump. She's also at a point where her age counts somewhat against her - not against Trump, it's in her favor, but against the real chance that Mike Pence (10 years younger) or someone else will be the Republican candidate.

The first main point is that there's a wide range of Dems to choose from - why give up a huge advantage by choosing Biden or Bernie? Warren's age counts moderately against her too in my opinion but not as a disqualifying blow.

A similar analysis relates to Klobuchar - the current evidence seems to pretty closely tilt her from demanding to abusive. I'm not sure it's disqualifying yet, and apparently there's some smoke surrounding Bernie too and other male candidates that should be investigated, but we Democrats have the luxury of a wide range of choices. We can be picky.

The second main point, maybe one for another post, is that Trump's awfulness doesn't guarantee he's going to lose. The most important thing is to beat him, not to get the Democratic candidate that exactly matches our personal political preferences. Time to be picky regarding some political disadvantages among the candidates.

Last point - all Dem candidates, but especially the older ones, should undergo public reviews of their physical and mental health fitness for office. It is now a great time to establish this precedent, one that works against Trump and will be helpful in future elections.

UPDATE: For a contrary opinion, read Everett's multi-part diatribe against my evident ageism and stupidity in the comments. YMMV. FWIW, I'm hitting the age at which I'm just starting to get concerned about ageism as my career progresses, so I obviously don't like ageism. OTOH, despite Bernie's conclusory statement against ageism, I bet that if forced to do it, he'd acknowledge that if a candidate were 10 or 20 years older than him, that candidate's age should be considered as a factor. So should Bernie's.


Fernando Leanme said...

I prefer Bernie Sanders because he has a long history praising communist dictatorships. I've seen videos where he drools over Castro, and explains the US should be the USSR. This will give me material I can use in Florida. The others I'm not sure about. Some of them have been out praising Maduro, etc. That should give us more material.

Everett F Sargent said...

Engaging in ageism combined with the guilt by association of 'health and mental health' in your 1st paragraph is NOT a good sign of cogent cognitive thinking of ANY kind on YOUR part.

All I know is that Trunpkin gets a 2nd term then I'm moving to (1) Venezuela, (2) Cuba, (3) Russia, (4) Gina (how Trumpkin pronounces China as the last two syllables of the word vagina), (5) Kill myself or, heaven forbid, (5) Florida.

But then again I might be mentally handicapped, what is your excuse Brian?

Everett F Sargent said...

Above "that Trunpkin" should read "that if Trunpkin"

Everett F Sargent said...

"The second main point, maybe one for another post, is that Trump's awfulness doesn't guarantee he's going to lose. The most important thing is to beat him, not to get the Democratic candidate that exactly matches our personal political preferences. Time to be picky regarding some political disadvantages among the candidates.

Last point - all Dem candidates, but especially the older ones, should undergo public reviews of their physical and mental health fitness for office. It is now a great time to establish this precedent, one that works against Trump and will be helpful in future elections."

It has been a very long time since I've been subjected to this level of stupidity.

"The most important thing is to beat him " makes perfect sense. Unfortunately the rest of that paragraph is in direct opposition to that ideal, to nominate anyone who can beat Trumpkin.

Your last paragraph should be directed to the general electorate, all those who intend to vote should be given mental and physical health tests. Yeah, that's a sure winner, weiner! Because, as should be all too obvious to everyone by now, it takes crazy and/or infirmed voters to elect a crazy and/or infirmed POTUS.

Discriminate much? /:

Everett F Sargent said...

Above "(5) Florida" should read "(6) Florida"

Also if I choose option (5), I want to be cremated and have my ashes dumped in any one of my 1st four options (at an elevation above +100 meters MHHW).

Having my ashes dumped in (6) Florada would be mean and cruel because it will all eventually be underwater. Or so I have been told.

Phil said...

There is a tiny part of (6)Florada aka Florida that is above 100 meters. Still, what's cruel about your ashes underwater? Why would your ashes care?

Everett F Sargent said...

Phil Hays,

My ashes would much more prefer the very long term probability to be just so much Dust In The Wind then to be just so much Mud In The Water ...

I close my eyes, only for a moment, and the moment's gone
All my dreams pass before my eyes, a curiosity
Dust in the wind
All they are is dust in the wind
Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea
All we do crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
Oh, ho, ho
Now, don't hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky
It slips away
And all your money won't another minute buy
Dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
All we are is dust in the wind
Dust in the wind
Everything is dust in the wind
Everything is dust in the wind
The wind

BTW, Florida is only for flatlanders (abbreviated FL)

Everett F Sargent said...


Have you somehow forgotten one Ronnie Raygun?

At that time, circa 1979-80, I already thought he suffered from Alzheimer's, I kid you not. Such an airhead from the word go.

But at least he listened to his advisers or some such. You can't even remotely say the same thing about Trumpkin.

But I digress.

What you need to do is buy a full page ad in the WSJ explaining why you think a totally subjective and arbitrary age limit (or no age limit as all are tested) for physical and mental fitness must be the 28th Amendment. Make sure your picture and home address are included in said ad.

You are very much an ageist. Which is rather remarkable, since neither Biden, Sanders or Warren have yet to show any visible impacts on their mental of physical fitness (mobility, spoken or written records).

You would think that a self proclaimed ageist, such as yourself, would have actual scientific evidence as to the mental or physical deficiencies of said people. Yet you provide absolutely no such evidence (even for Trumpkin for heaven's sake) whatsoever.

Heck, Trumpkin even stated that Hilldog didn't have the 'so called' stamina for the job. She even fainted at one point (due to a cold/flu and exhaustion if I recall correctly). Is that the type of politically motivated testing of which you speak?

You do have some real solid evidence for your own personal political opinion with regard to mental and physical fitness of any candidate for any office?

Because, if you don't, then all that your opinion amounts to, is a royal POS.

Everett F Sargent said...


Nice mini hit job by the way. Closing with ... wait for it ... "We can be picky."

I'm of the deeply held opinion that "We can be picky" is more of a curse than a cure, So, quite obviously, I would not advocate for any single Democratic candidate at any time. How many Sanders supporters didn't vote for Hilldog in 2016 (don't have a clue, but that is what happens when you pick one person from the field, it is called intellectual ownership, your preferred person lost, so meh for voting in the general election).

You should just admit that all you are really looking for are just subjective excuses for your own list of preferred candidates.

CapitalistImperialistPig said...

As an old guy myself I have to say that the whole concept of ageism is ridiculous when applied to somebody over 65. There is indisputable evidence of rapid physical decline by or before the 40's and mental decline is significant after 60. That doesn't mean that there aren't many jobs at which people over 70 can do well, but being President is not one of them, just like people over 50 can't play pro basketball. 65 ought to be the maximum age to run for President, and Senators, Congressmen and Federal judges should get the boot somewhere in their mid seventies.

I personally would like to see candidates between 40 and 55.

Ed Darrell said...

I've known Joe Biden since 1974. As Mike Mansfield described him to me, he's one of the bravest men in our nation, with one of the biggest hearts. Mansfield pulled out the stops to get Biden NOT to resign from the Senate after the death of his first wife and daughter. Mansfield said the nation needs men like Biden in service.

I've been disappointed in Biden a few times. I regret he didn't find a path to resolve the Clarence Thomas scandal -- but no one ever has been able to resolve such scandals when one party is unwilling to participate. I wish Biden had footnoted that speech better. Biden's aggressively friendly manor makes me cringe -- but only because he's so friendly, not because he's creepy.

If we analyze his record, it's solid. He led the Judiciary Committee well, he was a power in Foreign Relations. He introduced and passed important laws. He made government work for people, and work better.

Yes, he's old. He's not lost a step. He could quickly restore lost lustre to America's executive branch and foreign relations.

I think he'll liven up the primaries, and probably push them toward policy discussions.

If he gets the nomination, I will gladly work to get him elected over any Republican, especially over the crook we have now.

I wish Joe Biden were 30 years younger. I'm unwilling to hold that against him.

Everett F Sargent said...


You really don't even begin to understand ageism, now do you?

You left out SCOTUS and all lower court system lifetime appointments.

Like this one "just like people over 50 can't play pro basketball"

Peak physical capacity usually occurs between the late teens and early 30's (i. e. look up Olympic medal winners). Or look at the age distributions of all the different pro sports leagues.

The same could ALMOST be said for mental fitness (e. g. all your best research work occurred before your 30's or some such), although that curve is very much flatter.

Second, I've lived through ageism in my youth, as a child of a single parent (three children, mother was 31, 33, 35 so 35 years old at 3rd child). Just try to get a decent job when you are a single female parent and in your 50's in the early to mid 1970's (Bookkeeper and/or CPA).

It just so happens to be that when I was no longer able to compete in a open field physical contest I took to exercising my mind (which is still very much a work in progress).

I'll close with this link and a single sentence quote from that article ...

"Older people themselves can be deeply ageist, having internalized a lifetime of negative stereotypes about aging."

I personally would like to see the two of you ageist do your Logan's Run dance much more thoughtfully. Because, as of now, you two have not even gotten out of the starting gate.

CapitalistImperialistPig said...

I like Joe Biden. I don't trust Bernie Sanders. They are both way too old to be President.

Yes, it's sad that we grow old, decrepit, and die, but we do, and by age 70 mental and physical decline are sufficient to make us incompetent to do the most demanding jobs, like being President. All the Presidents over seventy (Harrison, Buchanan, Reagan, and Trump) have shown strong evidence of that decline.

Mr. Sargent is a pretty good witness against his own cause, citing exactly the good reasons you don't want a 70 something flying your plane or country.

Everett F Sargent said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Everett F Sargent said...

Forget all this ageism crap for a very brief moment.

If Biden was the Democratic nominee for POTUS and Sanders was the Democratic nominee for VPOTUS (or vice versa, though extremely unlikely both would be nominated), would you; (1) Vote for Trump, (2) Vote the Democratic ticket, vote for another 3rd party candidate, or (4) stay home (don't vote)?

Specifically, this question is directed at Brian and CIP (or others that lean much more towards the Democratic Party).

I would vote exactly the same way I've always voted since 1972.

Everett F Sargent said...

"vote for another 3rd party candidate"
should be
"(3) Vote for another 3rd party candidate"

Everett F Sargent said...

Oh Oh according to the ageists here we are all eff'ed!

From that graph the AVERAGE age of Article III judges is ~69 years old.

Time for ageist to go home.

Oh Oh according to the ageists we are all eff'ed again!!

Life expectancy (at birth) in the USA was 79.2 years in 2015.

Time for ageist to go home again. /:

This /: is the ageism emoticon which is also known as slanthead emoticon.

Everett F Sargent said...

"as slanthead" should be "as the slanthead"

Barton Paul Levenson said...

I think the presidency should be limited to people only of ages 21-23.

CapitalistImperialistPig said...

I think Mr Sargent has revealed his intellectual depth and mental age. Way to put together a logical argument, EFS.

David B. Benson said...

Not even 4 years.

Rabett gas. --- apologies, Eli.

caveat emptor said...

If age is no object why not Jimmy Carter? A brilliant and respected man who is basically the perfect anti-Trump.

Brian said...

Everett, I've deleted your comment that contained profanity against a fellow commenter.

We don't ask for much restraint here at Rabett Run, but that's over the line.

CapitalistImperialistPig said...

Well, Brian, I'm a bit sorry about the deletion. I thought EFS was making my case pretty well.

Everett F Sargent said...

Just for CIP the redacted version if Brian will allow only the salient fact through.

... It is against the law.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967

As for making CIP's case, now that's really a good one. Chuckle chortle. I present facts with links while CIP vainly tries to play reverse psychology.

I'm still waiting on anyone to present a fact based counter argument.

In a follow on post, I'll briefly discuss SCOTUS, their ages, and what arbitrary ageism would do today to decimate the current court leading to predominately 7-2 conservative decisions.

Moral of this story? Careful what you wish for, as you just might get it, in the backside so to speak.

Fernando Leanme said...

Whatever you do, make sure you pick a candidate who has an extensive YouTube library

Like this

CapitalistImperialistPig said...

@EFS - I presented some proposed changes in the laws governing elections, so I thought you might notice that that would change what things are legal and illegal. Evidently not.

Well now you know.

Everett F Sargent said...

Yes, but I already knew that talk was really cheap around here.

I think we should reduce the voting age to 13 years old for federal and statewide elections. /:

As to SCOTUS, I'll immediately grant your wish, say bye bye to RBG (85, D), SGB (80, D), say hello to two new Trumpkin nominees. Say welcome to the new 7-2 conservative decisions SCOTUS.

Unknown said...

As for the Supreme Court, I've supported a Constitutional amendment for term limits for them and appellate court judges for many years. I think term limits would mostly end the practice of appointing justices who are way too young just so you can maximize their residency on the Court, and instead get more nominees at the peak of their careers in their late 50s and in their 60s.

Still, maybe it's an ageist opinion of mine that I'll cop to, in that I also don't think having justices die in office is a great outcome or having them serve while in severe physical decline. Term limits can help with this. I now hope that RBG and Breyer tough it out to 2021, but term limits in the past likely would've given us a much more balanced Court (because of increased turnover). It's also an idea with some bipartisan support.

David B. Benson said...

Also it would help to have a much larger court. Even 19 is not too many.