General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders' birth was closer to Lincoln's assassination than the present day.
Lincoln's assassination (April 15, 1865) to Bernie's birth (September 8, 1941) = 76 years, 4 months, 24 days
Bernie's birth (September 8, 1941) to today (February 19, 2019) = 77 years, 5 months, 11 days
Just thought I'd throw this statistic out there.
demmiblue
(36,875 posts)What is your point?
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)BlueStater
(7,596 posts)demmiblue
(36,875 posts)Keep it up, buttercup.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)demmiblue
(36,875 posts)spanone
(135,861 posts)stopbush
(24,396 posts)The sitting president isnt in line for anything.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)What then is the relevant difference (in regards to age) between the two positions, and on what objective measure is that predicated on?
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)She could become President in the flash of an eye, under certain circumstances.
That is why the President and Vice-President do not travel together. Ever.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)I'm basing this on the fact that no one in history has ever ascended to the presidency because they were Speaker of the House at the time and both the President and Vice President happened to be incapacitated at the exact same time.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)The point is that the Speaker of the House CAN become President at any time, without notice. Therefore, if age matters, it matters for all in the line of succession.
It's true that the President and Vice President are generally not in the same place at the same time, but there are exceptions to that. Both figures have publicly-scheduled events, too. We often know where they will be at any given time.
In 1963, we learned just how quickly the President can be replaced. That's why we now have a clear line of succession spelled out.
The point is also that age doesn't matter.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)If we are talking "succession" she's only "two heart beats" away. (i.e. a president can't "succeed" themselves).
The significance of the nit is that she's really not all that far away. Especially with all of the kerfluffle going on with Mueller, one never really knows how fast things could change.
JenniferJuniper
(4,513 posts)not a fan of ageism.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2019, 02:11 PM - Edit history (2)
That maybe people who have already exceeded the average life expectancy of their gender aren't the best candidates for one of the most stressful, demanding jobs on the planet?
My grandmother was in excellent health until she was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease when she was 81. She died seven years later at 88. Noting that our bodies are more vulnerable to diseases when we get to be that old and that people over 75 dying suddenly and unexpectedly isn't unheard of is not ageism, it's acknowledging reality.
Ms. Toad
(34,086 posts)based on general characteristics of people of that class, yes.
Case in point: https://www.travelandleisure.com/trip-ideas/national-parks/bett-reid-soskin-96-year-old-park-ranger
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2019, 03:01 PM - Edit history (1)
Being a 96-year-old park ranger is impressive, but it's not quite the same thing as being POTUS. All that link proves is that people are capable of living that long, something I was quite aware of already. My paternal grandfather and grandmother lived to be 98 and 95, respectively. My grandfather was in pretty good health up until maybe the last two years of his life. My grandmother not so much.
But most people don't live that long and anyone over 80 is much more likely to die suddenly and unexpectedly than someone younger than them is. Having an enormous amount of strain on them from an incredibly demanding job like the presidency doesn't help.
Ms. Toad
(34,086 posts)When you make your assessment based on general characteristics of a class (race, gender, age), rather than looking at the characteristics of an individual person it is classism (racism, gender bias, agism)
The Truth Is Here
(354 posts)dabbling in politics in merry old England. I think Bernie will be fine. He's MUCH healthier and wiser than the stupid DumbfuckNut in the WH.
Ageism fucking sucks and you should be ashamed for thinking of this stupid post.
Response to The Truth Is Here (Reply #5)
ehrnst This message was self-deleted by its author.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If you're certain he's in great health, why the insults? Why the rage?
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Nice ageism post there.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)Also, it's apparently now ageism to even acknowledge that you're old.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)especially after she fainted from dehydration.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)A lot of accusations against me being ageist, but I mentioned in the past that I'd probably support Jay Inslee and Sherrod Brown if they ran. Both of them are over 65. They are, by the measures of the human lifespan, old.
79 and 78, the ages Bernie and Biden will be upon taking office, are just bridges too far for me.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Still looking at the exploratory committee thing.
Do you seriously believe that the candidate has not taken that into consideration and weighed the pros & cons of both the run and serving in the office should he be elected?
Your post is ageism pure and simple.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)Not a fan of ageism.
LuckyCharms
(17,455 posts)BlueStater
(7,596 posts)But egotisical, entitled old white guys have to be in power forever, I guess.
LuckyCharms
(17,455 posts)Learn something new everyday.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)But you don't see too many 90 and 100 years old running for the office, do you?
LuckyCharms
(17,455 posts)I must be out of the loop. I had no idea.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)What then is the precise age at which one becomes too old for the position, and (again) on what objective evidence is that measure based on?
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)In this country, it's 76 for men and 78 for women, I believe.
JenniferJuniper
(4,513 posts)Those are years at birth.
Life expectancy for a male age 77 who is in reasonably good health and doesn't smoke is about 86, not 76.
Seriously?
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)You don't think it takes quite a bit of ego and sense of entitlement to run for president when you're almost 80?
cwydro
(51,308 posts)Im no fan of Bernie. Not at all.
But your ageist argument doesnt sit well with me.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2019, 03:07 PM - Edit history (1)
It's not unheard of for people as old as him to just die suddenly. It's a fact of life. For all I know, he could live to be 105, but I don't think the most powerful job on the planet is the best place to test his longevity.
MuseRider
(34,115 posts)KPN
(15,649 posts)1) you have a lot of time on your hands , and
2) Bernie has seen a lot.
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)kennetha
(3,666 posts)would be awfully nice. We could use a new generation of democrats, with their formative experiences grounded in the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
That would be nice. Bernie is so last century, it's unbelievable. I feel the same way about Biden.
And even though I was a strong Clinton supporter last time around, part of me did think (especially when it seemed my we might have another Clinton-Bush contest) "can't we find some new players?"
stopbush
(24,396 posts)As far as ageism goes, I am amazed at how older pols find the energy and stamina to keep up the pace of political life, let alone running for POTUS. I sure couldnt do it, nor would I want to do it.
Right now, my $ is on Kamala.
Beakybird
(3,333 posts)I won't vote for him in the primary though.
Maru Kitteh
(28,342 posts)Cuthbert Allgood
(4,961 posts)broiles
(1,370 posts)Biden is older than god.