HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » What's with all the Agei...

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 12:34 AM

What's with all the Ageism in These Threads??

Hey!

So I've been lurking here for about a month or so and started posting last week.

One thing that strikes me as very odd, and contradictory is the "They're too old" comments, as to explain why Sanders, Clinton or Warren cannot run for President in 2020.

From what I've seen here, many seemingly prolific and respected posters are old enough to remember Watergate (so 60-70?) I bet they wouldn't like it if they were told they're too old for internet forums.

It's as if some of you interpret "average life expectancy" as a sell-by date stamped on a human's neck that tells us we'll rot 76 years after our date of birth.

Like there are no people who reach 100 or come close.

Hell, over 30 years ago, some debated that Ronald Reagan was too old to be president, yet not only did he do 2 terms, he lived to be 94.

And no, I'm not praising Reagan or saying he was a good president. I'm just stating facts.

If Repugnant-cons cared about age, Trump's 70-year-old ass wouldn't be in the White House, right now.

They care about ideology over age, and so should we, if we want to defeat them, since THEIR ideology is clearly toxic.

National Enquirer has said Hillary Clinton had dementia and will go any day now, for like 2 years, when the woman's been getting her hike on for months, and is probably healthier than those alt-reich, neckbeard, orange-nuthuggers who spread that meme all day everyday.

Personally, I'd love to see Al Franken and Elizabeth Warren on the 2020 ticket. They don't take any crap, from the right.

But yeah, how old is "too old" is based on how one takes care of themselves, and is also up to nature, fate, and/or God (whichever you believe).

143 replies, 7567 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 143 replies Author Time Post
Reply What's with all the Ageism in These Threads?? (Original post)
Manly_Scream Mar 2017 OP
elleng Mar 2017 #1
JI7 Mar 2017 #2
elleng Mar 2017 #3
KittyWampus Mar 2017 #4
elleng Mar 2017 #7
littlemissmartypants Mar 2017 #12
Eyeball_Kid Mar 2017 #39
snort Mar 2017 #43
delisen Mar 2017 #75
Alice11111 Mar 2017 #105
delisen Mar 2017 #115
Alice11111 Mar 2017 #119
delisen Mar 2017 #124
treestar Mar 2017 #91
Alice11111 Mar 2017 #107
Chemisse Mar 2017 #104
Beartracks Mar 2017 #26
MFM008 Mar 2017 #5
Phoenix61 Mar 2017 #6
Alice11111 Mar 2017 #108
Phoenix61 Mar 2017 #114
Alice11111 Mar 2017 #117
delisen Mar 2017 #126
Alice11111 Mar 2017 #129
delisen Mar 2017 #125
Jonny Appleseed Mar 2017 #8
Igel Mar 2017 #69
Jonny Appleseed Mar 2017 #71
uppityperson Mar 2017 #9
Manly_Scream Mar 2017 #13
retread Mar 2017 #48
janterry Mar 2017 #54
Docreed2003 Mar 2017 #64
uppityperson Mar 2017 #111
Alice11111 Mar 2017 #110
Ms. Toad Mar 2017 #10
delisen Mar 2017 #37
Eyeball_Kid Mar 2017 #40
Kaleva Mar 2017 #86
treestar Mar 2017 #92
Ms. Toad Mar 2017 #97
delisen Mar 2017 #100
Ms. Toad Mar 2017 #109
delisen Mar 2017 #120
Ms. Toad Mar 2017 #123
tazkcmo Mar 2017 #102
delisen Mar 2017 #122
delisen Mar 2017 #89
Ms. Toad Mar 2017 #96
delisen Mar 2017 #98
zentrum Mar 2017 #11
JudyM Mar 2017 #99
LakeArenal Mar 2017 #14
littlemissmartypants Mar 2017 #15
Manly_Scream Mar 2017 #17
PoindexterOglethorpe Mar 2017 #16
Manly_Scream Mar 2017 #18
PoindexterOglethorpe Mar 2017 #28
Samantha Mar 2017 #23
PoindexterOglethorpe Mar 2017 #30
Egnever Mar 2017 #35
delisen Mar 2017 #63
PoindexterOglethorpe Mar 2017 #93
delisen Mar 2017 #127
LisaM Mar 2017 #67
butdiduvote Mar 2017 #78
PoindexterOglethorpe Mar 2017 #94
LisaM Mar 2017 #95
delisen Mar 2017 #128
Samantha Mar 2017 #90
janterry Mar 2017 #53
marybourg Mar 2017 #19
Manly_Scream Mar 2017 #73
BainsBane Mar 2017 #20
delisen Mar 2017 #34
BainsBane Mar 2017 #36
delisen Mar 2017 #42
TDale313 Mar 2017 #21
Sunlei Mar 2017 #22
Jim Beard Mar 2017 #24
PoindexterOglethorpe Mar 2017 #31
democrank Mar 2017 #25
randome Mar 2017 #52
democrank Mar 2017 #60
randome Mar 2017 #61
democrank Mar 2017 #83
delisen Mar 2017 #66
Name removed Mar 2017 #27
tblue37 Mar 2017 #29
Warpy Mar 2017 #32
Cooley Hurd Mar 2017 #33
Chitown Kev Mar 2017 #38
yallerdawg Mar 2017 #59
Zing Zing Zingbah Mar 2017 #82
Chitown Kev Mar 2017 #41
lillypaddle Mar 2017 #44
delisen Mar 2017 #46
lillypaddle Mar 2017 #49
DrDan Mar 2017 #85
moonscape Mar 2017 #106
DrDan Mar 2017 #112
moonscape Mar 2017 #118
DrDan Mar 2017 #142
lillypaddle Mar 2017 #141
DrDan Mar 2017 #45
lillypaddle Mar 2017 #50
delisen Mar 2017 #47
randome Mar 2017 #51
Zing Zing Zingbah Mar 2017 #74
delisen Mar 2017 #130
WePurrsevere Mar 2017 #55
samnsara Mar 2017 #56
Blue_true Mar 2017 #121
delisen Mar 2017 #136
Recursion Mar 2017 #57
nolabels Mar 2017 #70
delisen Mar 2017 #137
Progressive dog Mar 2017 #58
crazycatlady Mar 2017 #62
Zing Zing Zingbah Mar 2017 #81
Paladin Mar 2017 #65
Orrex Mar 2017 #68
Zing Zing Zingbah Mar 2017 #72
PJMcK Mar 2017 #76
BeyondGeography Mar 2017 #77
Chitown Kev Mar 2017 #80
delisen Mar 2017 #131
BeyondGeography Mar 2017 #132
delisen Mar 2017 #134
bathroommonkey76 Mar 2017 #79
Bradical79 Mar 2017 #84
Kaleva Mar 2017 #87
treestar Mar 2017 #88
BlueStater Mar 2017 #101
Alice11111 Mar 2017 #103
onecent Mar 2017 #113
Different Drummer Mar 2017 #116
bronxiteforever Mar 2017 #133
BeyondGeography Mar 2017 #135
bronxiteforever Mar 2017 #139
delisen Mar 2017 #138
bronxiteforever Mar 2017 #140
Blue_Warrior Mar 2017 #143

Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 12:40 AM

1. Thanks.

It's not an issue I've addressed, but I sure as hell should have.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 12:41 AM

2. because people love to complain about stupid shit

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 12:48 AM

3. and they sure do it around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 12:51 AM

4. Giving Democrats under the age of 70 a chance isn't ageism. Recognizing that the upcoming

 

generation hasn't been supported widely enough isn't ageism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:03 AM

7. Suggesting that adults over the age of 65 are too old to serve as President IS ageism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #7)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:13 AM

12. Bingo. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #7)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:33 AM

39. I'm over 65 and I worked for many years in public services for seniors.

Call it ageism if you want. I don't care what you call it. It's absolutely true that people who reach their senior years have an increasing risk of disabilities with every year that passes BECAUSE of their age alone. Just look at the stats, look at the increases in health insurance costs, look at the actuarial tables. It happens and it's unavoidable.

We sometimes don't know when people begin to lose capacity. Folks who are losing capacity often sense that something is wrong and they do whatever they can to compensate so that it APPEARS that they're competent when they are not. I encountered this situation countless times. Cognitive abilities DO diminish.

I watched Sanders closely during the 2016 primary campaign, I don't know if anyone else noticed this, but I saw a 74 year-old man struggle with the exhausting campaign pace. He lost color in his face, his posture became more slumped, his vocal quality diminished, his rhetoric became stiff. After he lost the nomination and took time off, he came back refreshed and revitalized. This was, IMO, a testament to the fact that national office is a grueling endeavor that takes a significant toll even on the most physically fit, no less presidents who are less so. Look at those early 2009 photos of Obama and compare that to his eighth year in office. And HE'S perhaps the most youthful and fit president we've had, ever.

Someone brought up Reagan and his two terms. Yeah. Reagan couldn't do two terms. He was cognitively incapable of running he executive branch after he was elected to his second term. And he was 73 at the start of the second term.

The job is too grueling and demanding for people in their 70s, with exceptions that become more rare with each advancing year. When we "choose" candidates for president, we have to admit that we really don't know who these people are or what they can do. We have to make educated guesses as to their fitness for office. And one factor in making those guesses is the time a person has been alive and the "arc" of competency/capacity on which each person stands. We don't allow people who are YOUNGER than 35 to become president, and THAT'S not called "ageism." That's called, smart. The same is true for those older than 70 or so. It's smart to consider resilience, endurance, stamina, and sustained mental acuity in the advancing years. There's too much at stake in the office of the president.

I was not in favor of HRC nor of Trump, nor of Sanders because of their respective ages, although I did vote for Sanders and Clinton during the campaign season.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eyeball_Kid (Reply #39)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 05:21 AM

43. This seems to be the stuff

a well chosen Vice President is made of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eyeball_Kid (Reply #39)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:07 AM

75. Every candidate I've observed struggled with endurance during presidential

campaigns. One possible exception was Ronald Reagan in 1980 who treated campaigning like an acting tour and seemed shallow - just kept playing the same role.

Obama got tired campaigning. Bill Clinton lost his voice and could hardly speak at some of his appearances.

Some candidates are less hands-on than others and think this makes a difference. Same as the presidency. The hands-on presidents carry a greater weight on their shoulders.

Carter was hands-on and warned Reagan about how grueling his schedule would be how early in the morning he would have to rise. Reagan laughed it off because he had no intention of getting up early of a daily briefing. He would rely on his staff to deal with many things.

If in choosing candidates we don't really know them it is because they don't have a long record of experience or have had media shape a false image. Kerry comes to mind. Everyone hard and read negatives about his wartime experience in Vietnam. So damaging were these stories that that the word "swift boating " is now used to describe the use of a false narrative to attack a political candidate.

I was recently surprised to read. about Kerry meeting with a Vietnamese soldier in 2017 and learn his actual combat experience:

the plan, the Vietnamese guerrilla told his former adversary (Kerry) on Saturday, was to use rifle and grenade fire to lure the heavily-armed American craft into range of a shoulder-held rocket launcher.
Kerry won a Silver Star for bravery for his actions during the guerrilla attack - he shot dead one Vietnamese fighter, and saved his crew from a counterattack
This tactic had paid off for the Viet Cong in the past but on this day Kerry made a dramatic decision, deliberately beaching his boat then storming ashore to pursue the operator.
Grabbing an M-16 rifle the then 26-year-old chased down the guerrilla and shot him dead, saving his crew from a counterattack.
Vo Ban Tam remembered the dead man, 24-year-old Ba Thanh, as a respected member of the Viet Cong's main force in Ca Mau province, trained to use the prized launcher.
'He was a good soldier,' he recalled, speaking through an interpreter on the banks of same river, shortly after Kerry re-visited the scene of the ambush for the first time.
Kerry had never before learned the name of the man he shot. During his unsuccessful 2004 White House campaign, opponents tarnished his war record by claiming he killed a teenager.

If we don't know our candidates because they are inexperienced - I would think it useful to give them time to get more experience.
If we don't know our candidates because their experience has been distorted by propaganda-that is a different problem to address.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #75)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 06:57 PM

105. Kerry's story breaks my heart. It was so unfair & GW

rarely even showed fot the Natl Guard, which was the safe place his daddy got for him. Of course, Dan Rather got canned for that truth coming out.

Yeah, Swiftboating, is just another lie and cheat scheme, to take down the good, and enable the liars. It was widely deployed in this last camp too, as I knew it would be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alice11111 (Reply #105)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:13 PM

115. It broke my heart too because I realized the swift boating had influenced me

a little bit and I am usually able to discount and disprove the lies regarding the nasty right wing lying industry.

The 2017 story about his meeting with the the survivor made me realize how horribly he had been wronged in that presidential campaign.
I knew the decades long lies about Hillary Clinton were smears because I had studied them, but I had never investigated Kerry's story.

Most of the rightwing smear machine is not redeemable. They truly feel they are entitled to lie nd make money off of their lies. There are some who get caught up init and later get disgusted and leave.

What I have figured out is that Democratic candidates who are targets are targeted because they are strong, honorable people who pose a significant threat to those who believe they are entitled lie, cheat, steal from and exploit.

I agree on Dan Rather-tht was a set up.

Propaganda is powerful.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #115)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:32 PM

119. Stick to principles v. Get the shit beat out of us

It is a parodox that continues to present itself.
Dems are usually ethical people who care about others.

Repubs usually lie, cheat and do whatever to take down the people of principles.

We don't want to be Repubs, but we have to get less naive...expect that they are going to lie and cheat their way...and more aggressive.
One reason we are better at governing is we are smarter and caring, while most of the Repubs focus on their own greed when they get in office...fuck the masses, it's party time for greed.

We just aren't as good at getting elected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alice11111 (Reply #119)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 09:21 PM

124. So true. Need to figure out how to take the Propaganda Machine down


I don't even have a television and never listen to talk radio but the propaganda seep in anyway-it is so pervasive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eyeball_Kid (Reply #39)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 02:54 PM

91. Yet Supreme Court Justice

does not seem to be as demanding and grueling. But you'd think it would be. It's all mind work and no fun - the Presidency seems to involve a lot of social and fun stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #91)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 07:26 PM

107. They get down time though, and they have long

Deadlines, plenty of others to cover if they are ill. It's nothing like the demands of a competent President. They can have time to recover, without the public noticing, if they just make it to hearings. They do have to have sharp intellectual capacity though, perhaps Clarence Thomas aside. Even he, is not really dumb, just RW and silent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eyeball_Kid (Reply #39)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 06:51 PM

104. I agree completely - and I am 62.

Age is not a constructed division between people, like race or sexuality, gender or socioeconomic status. People of different ages are different physiologically.

A person in their 70s could do a great job of being president, with good mental focus, stamina and health. But it's less likely than someone in their 60s thriving through the 8 years, which is less likely than someone in their 50s. It's not an 'ism,' it's just biology.

It's disingenuous to deny that there are age-related differences just so you can defend your favorite candidate. That candidate may make a great president, but, if all else is equal, a younger candidate is a better bet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 02:58 AM

26. This sums up half the Internet!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 12:52 AM

5. As a senior

I would like to see the vitality that winning democrats have. Most are between 40-50.
There is no age limit. I'm just saying what I usually look for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 12:55 AM

6. I'm no spring chicken and

the ugly reality is the body can't do what it could at 40 or 45 for that matter. Being President and doing the job well requires an enormous amount of energy. I don't know that I'd call it ageism to worry that someone who enters the office at the age of 70 might not have the physical energy to do the job.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #6)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 07:28 PM

108. Fast mental capability is more important, IMO.

Though physical matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alice11111 (Reply #108)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:12 PM

114. But even that drops with age

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #114)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:22 PM

117. Yes. A trader on the CBE told me that 35 was about the max

Age to be working for someone else, not oneself, on CBE. He said mental speed was often more important than education. They get that after their floor time was up. That is an extreme example though.

There are extreme differences in chronological ages though. Some are losing it at 55 or so. I have an aunt 86, who runs a major corporation, and she works 80 hr week.
I keep telling her you aren't going to have time to enjoy your life. She is considering retirement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alice11111 (Reply #108)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 09:35 PM

126. I see judgement as the most important characteristic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #126)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:23 PM

129. Yes. I guess we won't see that for 46 months

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phoenix61 (Reply #6)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 09:33 PM

125. Do you consider energy more important than judgement? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:03 AM

8. Because it's helpful on a practical level

 

Obama may have fared worse if he weren't young. The youth factor put the wind in our sails in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jonny Appleseed (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 09:47 AM

69. The youth factor pandered.

People like to vote for those in their own group. If you're young, more often you'd rather vote for somebody who's young.

We decry that when "if you're white, more often you'd rather vote for somebody who's white." We support it when it's "if you're Latino, more often you'd rather vote for somebody who's Latino." And when somebody dares to say, "if you're Jewish, more often you'd rather vote for somebody who's Jewish" we detect the dog-whistle of racism.

One definition of "groupism," " the tendency to think and act as members of a group : the tendency to conform to the cultural pattern of a group at the expense of individualism and cultural diversity groupism." (Of course, there's other definition that some think must be the One True Definition, but this one's apparently the most widespread outside of some sociological circles.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #69)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 09:54 AM

71. I said practical; not ideal

 

Perfect world sure, but we need to win elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:04 AM

9. Ronald Reagan had Alzheimer's, hardly something good in a president, fwiw

Yes, experience is important, but failing to take into account that being president is hard work (except for the twit) is not good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #9)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:15 AM

13. He obviously didn't have Alzheimer's for the 2 full terms.

And I didn't say it wasn't hard work.

Just that everyone who is a senior isn't incapable or feeble, because they are a senior.

Saying "No X, Y or Z, should not run; they are too old" is exactly what that means.

Trump being a sucky president isn't about his age. It's about how he's been surrounded by sycophancy, and privelage all of his life. And his general asshatary, and evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 07:32 AM

48. "He obviously..." Really??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retread (Reply #48)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 07:59 AM

54. You are right

it develops slowly, so it's hard to tell! He probably had early signs in his first term that we (and his family) ignored.

But I lived through those years - and I remember SAYING (like others!) that he probably had Alzheimer's - though Nancy and those that surrounded him denied it.

If I knew (just watching TV) then it had been going on for quite awhile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to retread (Reply #48)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 09:15 AM

64. Funny....my wife and I were discussing this last night

Based off of the books I've read, Reagan clearly had a cognitive decline after the assassination attempt. He could always shine in front of the cameras and with a script because he could act his way through it. Privately, he was a different story and there's plenty of eye witness accounts to back that up. As for the poster who said "two full terms", I don't know about that, perhaps. Everything I've read points to his assassination attempt as being the event which caused his fastest decline in his faculties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Reply #13)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 07:38 PM

111. He had Alzheimer's for most of the 2 terms though.

I don't see anyone arguing that Trump's problem is his age but the fact that he's a jerk, so that's an odd thing to throw in here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uppityperson (Reply #9)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 07:33 PM

110. Yeah, they propped him up. This one is harder to prop up

Because he escapes to his King Kong twitter rages. Plus, like w Angela Merkel, his manners and social skills are so bad, that it can't be excused, by any stretch of the imagination.

They let him loose at the Trumpster rallies, hoping they can let him spew enough to keep him under wraps for awhile.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:07 AM

10. The presidency is physically and emotionally challenging.

Last edited Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Look at how it ages even younger presidents. Every president comes out the other side looking as if about double the years have passed during their presidency.

At 60, I am beginning to see the impact age has on my abilities. I still work 100 hour weeks - so I'm not saying I'm decrepit and unable to do anything, and I intend to work to age 72 at roughly the same pace I'm working now. But I watch my father, at age 88, who is significantly slower than he was a decade ago. I know that the reality is that contemplating where I would be at 74 or 78 after not only a 100 hour work-week, but a much more physically and emotionally challenging work than the work I do now is not prettty.

Age, both absolute - and how it seems to be impacting certain candidates - will be a factor in who I support for president. I want a candidate that will be able to weather the emotional and physical equivalent of 8 or 16 years, and come out the other side with a lot of life left to live.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #10)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:30 AM

37. How is it physically challenging? Physically it seems to be a pampered

life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:40 AM

40. No, it's not the same as working as a lumberjack.

But it's probably the most stressful and demanding job on the planet. And THAT takes its toll. Of course, people like Trumpy don't fit the mold, although he may be having a difficult time with a lot of his responsibilities because he's too tired (and lazy) to pay attentio to detail. That's one reason that he's a horrible president NOW and he'll get worse as time progresses. And I'm only partially attributing his poor performance to his advanced age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 12:46 PM

86. One can handle stress, long hours, lack of rest better when in good physical shape

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 02:55 PM

92. True. And anything you need to find out about

you have people to look it up and report to you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:04 PM

97. You'd probably call my life pretty pampered, too -

but I can tell you that working 100 hours a week is physically demanding. Traveling and adjusting to time zones is physically demanding.

It is not demanding in the same way that hard physical labor is - but you're not paying attention if you don't see the physical toll that being president takes on anyone in that role.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #97)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 06:07 PM

100. I've never heard an ex-president say that it was too physically demanding

and was sorry to have served.

Jimmy Carter did tell Reagan that it was hard work but Carter was very disappointed in not being voted a second term.

I did hear Bill Clinton say how much he missed having Air Force One at his service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #100)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 07:29 PM

109. So because they don't complain,

you just ignore the evidnece that is visible at the end of every presidency?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022761/The-White-House-effect-Why-American-presidents-age-TWICE-fast-office.html



Feel free to ignore what is a pretty well recognized phenomenon.

Personally, I'm going to take into account age when I decide which candidate to support - and I'm not likley to support one already in their 70s, in large part becasue no matter how fit they seem when they enter office, this job is very hard on those who do it - and, given another reasonable option, I'm not likely to vote to give it to someone in their 70s or older for the reasons I've already stated.

(And just because someone wants to be president, wants a second term, or misses the trappings once they are out of office is no reason for me to vote them in. The current president is a prime example.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #109)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:33 PM

120. You cite fake news from The Daily Mail, I cite research from Journal of the American Medical Assoc.

and Harvard Medical Publications.

Wikipedia will no longer accept citations from the tabloid Daily Mail because it is not fact based.

You are free to vote your opinions and prejudices

I do feel free to ignore and refute what is fake news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #120)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 09:18 PM

123. So here's a few more sources.

Just because you don't like the source doesn't inherently make the content fake.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20394-2004Nov29.html

“We’re reasonably confident that there is a difference between elected leaders and unelected leaders in terms of mortality,” said Anupam B. Jena, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School, who coauthored the report with Andrew Olenski, a research assistant at the school, and Matthew Abola, a medical student at Case Western Reserve University.

Rather than compare a president or prime minister to their country’s general population — whom they are statistically likely to outlive because of their higher socioeconomic status — the researchers pit them against the person they defeated in their elections to their nation’s highest office. The researchers also broadened their scope by looking at presidents and prime ministers in 17 relatively stable Western democracies, rather than limiting the study to the United States.
. . .

And indeed, after adjusting as well as they could for things like life expectancy — and screening out the occasional dictator, since the study was supposed to be about elected leaders — the researchers found that heads of state lived 2.7 fewer years than the opponents they beat.

https://www.statnews.com/2015/12/14/president-shorten-life-study/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #37)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 06:17 PM

102. Still under 60 here.

But I brew coffee at 5 PM just so I make it to 10 PM! My point is, as we age, just staying awake can be exhausting!

I personally want someone with so much energy it infects those around her/him. Most likely that energy is found in more "youthful" bodies.

I do agree though that a person's age is only one of many factors that should be considered and if its the only consideration it is ageism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tazkcmo (Reply #102)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 09:02 PM

122. Actually older people tend to sleep less at night and worry about it-but it may be natural

I understand that some school systems are trying to rearrange high school schedules because research shows that teenagers naturally stay awake later and are sleepier in the morning.

Sleep research is still in its infancy but there does seem to be difference in sleep patterns due to age.

Artificial light also plays a role.

I found that 2-stage or 2-cycle sleep used to be the norm in England and Europe up to the 19th century when doctors began to advise sleeping 7-8 hours straight.

Before that families would retire at sunset and then awake around midnight and do chores, play, have sexual relations or whatever. They then went back to sleep and rose at dawn. Maybe this is more natural or maybe it had to do with farming, lack of electricity, need to tend fires.

There seems to be an epidemic of undiagnosed hypothyroidism in industrialized countries I do know that friends with hypothyroidism drink lots of coffee to stay awake, even in the evening and it does not keep them awake.

The recommendations for taking thyroid medication changed several years ago to include more people who just had slightly low thyroid functioning due to findings from the framingham study.
Personally I think lack of vitality should not just be accepted as a part of aging. I have known so many older people with incredible vitality--often they are the ones who walk everywhere or bicycle to work or dance regularly.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #10)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 02:35 PM

89. Why do they need to weather 16 years: or come out of the presidency with a lot of life left to live?

Last edited Sun Mar 19, 2017, 05:50 PM - Edit history (1)

The presidential term is 4 years. Some presidents do substantial work in 4 years . One young president was killed but did well for the country in the less than 4 years served. I think a well-qualified person could serve for four years and not run again.

Konrad Adenauer, Chancellor of Germany from 1949 to 1963 entered office at 73 left at age 87 nd died 4 years after that. He did millions of times better for Germany than the leader before him- much younger guy, Adolph Hitler.

I would never have a categorical age criterion and , as I think about it more, I think that the comment Clinton often made about Trump not having the temperament for the presidency is a quality I have unconsciously considered.

I've never been a big fan of John Kerry, although I did, of course, vote for him. He had the temperament, the experience and I could be confident that he would do everything he could to be a good and wise president, and would be able to make tough decisions and be patient rather than reactive.in foreign policy.

He's 73 now. If is is just in reasonably good health I would vote for him today over many younger, less experienced candidates.

In a nuclear age I really want to know the experience and the termperament of the candidate. I am not interested in a candidate who has little history.

We do have 5 living ex-presidents. This a lot, historically.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #89)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:00 PM

96. The physical effect seems to be equivalent to about double the length of time in office

As I said in my second sentence, and when I referenced it later I referred to teh physical equivalent of 8 or 16 years. In other words, a 4 year term is effectively 8 years of aging, and so on - referencing back to the impact I've seen on every president in my lifetime.

There is no reason we can't know the experience and temperament of a candidate at an age far below their 70s. And, I'd argue, that knowing the temperament of someone in their 60s is not necessarily predictive of their temperament in their 70s - when a lot of age-related temperament changes start to appear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ms. Toad (Reply #96)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 05:43 PM

98. Thanks I see your meaning but it seems so unscientific.


Do you have any accelerated aging examples?

We have had since FDR(who did have a disability) Truman, Eisenhower, JFK (3 yrs but I could not say he aged appreciably in that time), Johnson. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, G.W. Bush, Obama.

I honestly haven't seen the signs of accelerated aging



http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/obama-going-gray-do-presidents-age-faster-201112063912
One researcher on aging found that presidents had longevity

Accelerated presidential aging? Not so.

The only problem with this notion of accelerated presidential aging is that it just ain’t so, according to S. Jay Olshansky, a professor at theUniversity ofIllinois at Chicago and a longevity expert.

In an article in tomorrow’s Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Olshansky says his research into presidential life expectancy found no evidence that American presidents die sooner than other American men of their time. In fact, quite the opposite: most of them lived long lives and beat the longevity expectations for their time.


Privileged people, including presidents, live longer

In his JAMA article, Olshansky offered a couple of explanations for presidential longevity.

All but 10 of the deceased presidents (whom he had studied) were college educated, wealthy, and had access to the top medical care of their day. The correlation between high socioeconomic status and long life is strong and consistent.

The other explanation is that these men were survivors. To reach the age at which they became president (the average was 55.1 years), they had to get through the perils of birth, early childhood, and young adulthood. Especially in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries, that wasn’t easy, so these men probably had some inborn hardiness, as well as fortunate circumstances.

Do our eyes deceive us? Yes they do.

And yet presidents do seem to age before our eyes. Olshansky says that’s partly because we just notice it more in someone who lives in the public eye.

In his JAMA article, Olshansky cited a study that connected gray hair to stress. But in his conversation with me, he emphasized that the outward signs of what we commonly attribute to aging and genuine aging aren’t necessarily related. “Getting wrinkles and turning gray—they really don’t matter very much,” he said.


In terms of knowing the experience and temperament of someone younger. Of course we can but they do have to have a certain amount of experience. Senators often do not have executive experience. Some experience in the non-governmental world.I suspect does not transfer well into the world of politics.

What do you think about the age of Supreme Court Justices?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:13 AM

11. I've seen it too.

And not just in reference to candidates being too old to run. I've seen stereotypes, just tossed off, about how old people think or behave.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zentrum (Reply #11)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 05:51 PM

99. Agreed. I've been naming it when it happens, not to shame anyone but it's as if they just don't see

it.

And then there's the other side, those who accuse others of being misogynistic for any criticism of a woman, even if substantively accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:15 AM

14. My dad lived to be 93

He had all his marbles, had a great sense of humor and went into assisted living (not a nursing home) when is physical body wore out at 91. But I would trust his decision making right to the end. Better than some of the doctors he dealt with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:16 AM

15. All excellent points, Manly_Scream.

It had to be said. Thank you for your bravery and for being so forthcoming. I have been similarly annoyed by this very thing. Welcome to DU.

♡lmsp

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to littlemissmartypants (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:32 AM

17. Thank You

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:27 AM

16. Ronald Reagan was too old.

It was obvious to the most casual observer that he was in the early stages of Alzheimer's in his second term. Yeah, he lived to be 94 but HE HAD ALZHEIMER'S the last twenty-five years of his life. Those were not productive years for him, not by a long shot. Sheer longevity is meaningless.

And while I understand that not everyone gets Alzheimer's, least of all as (relatively) young as he got it, it is NOT ageism to acknowledge that older people haven't the stamina and flexibility of younger people.

I'm 68. And I'm a very young 68 in that most people take me for a good ten years younger. I am in incredibly good health, far better than anyone else my age that I know. I have no chronic health issues. I have the liveliness of someone at least 20 years my junior, which is why I think so many people are astonished to learn my real age. I'm reasonably smart. I'm decently well read and follow current events. But I'm still 68 years old. I can't stay up until 3am and then get up at 6am and function, as I could in my 20s.

The reality is that as we get older we slow down. I think even more to the point is that we are often stuck in the past. There's a saying about generals always fighting the last war, and that's simply a shorthand for what I'm trying to say.

Every time I read some pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking about a vastly extended life span, I shudder. Because if that ever happens, the generation then in power won't relinquish that power for decades, maybe centuries, and that is NOT a good thing.

We need young people. We need new ideas. We need the stamina of youth. I am very proud to be a Baby Boomer. I think my generation accomplished a lot. And if you disagree, that's fine. But no matter how proud I am, I know it is past time we gave way.

Among the many things wrong with Donald Trump is that he's too old. He's stuck in the paradigms of his youth, as many of us are. In his case, his thinking is stuck some decades in the past, not counting his genuine stupidity and inability as a businessman. Even if he were competent, I'd still be thinking, although perhaps not saying it so publicly, that he's too old to be President.

I'll refrain from naming names, but that was also, in my opinion, a serious issue with the Democratic candidate. But no matter. We cannot keep on thinking that various Democratic figures, now in their late 60's or early 70's are who we need going forward. Yeah, I'm very sorry Al Gore didn't get to be President. As I'm very sorry Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders didn't. But it's time to move on. If we don't start letting the younger generation move into genuine positions of power, we will have nothing and no one going forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #16)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:51 AM

18. I'm not opposed to seeing younger candidates.

Regardless, of who the canidate is, I'm voting for them.

I, in fact, am not old enough to remember Reagan (I turned 30 last month) so I will concede to your point about your observations of him.

As far, Trump : I still think Trump's EXTENSIVE character defects have more to do with how he was raised, and not *when* he was raised.

You see similiar behavior in his first litter, and they're 35-40.

You also see it in his 50-something cronies, and even his 46-year-old wife, who was not only a birther, but thought being FLOTUS was the perfect oppurotunity to be a successful "It Girl".

It's a special blend of upper class white entitlement, and not knowing how to reality.

I enjoyed reading your post on this though. It was truly insightful

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Reply #18)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 03:28 AM

28. I am not claiming that Donald Trump's flaws are because of when he grew up.

But I am saying that he's a creature of his youth, as we all are. He's also vastly flawed because of his assumptions about lots of things, including the one about his being a terrific businessman.

My main point is that we don't want to get so lost in the notion that Hillary Clinton would have been so much a better President that she should be the candidate in 2020. Or that Al Gore should be. Or any of the many who are already a lot older than sixty who are being touted as the candidate for 2020.

We absolutely must be looking to a younger generation.

And you have correctly pointed out that it's not simply an age thing, but an ideology thing. Nonetheless, we will be vastly better served to look to a younger generation for our next candidate.

A bit of an aside: I'm not only old, 68, but I was living in the Washington DC area when Watergate happened. In the final few weeks before Nixon's resignation it was obvious to the most casual observer that almost no work was getting done in the government. I didn't work in the government, and I was doing my job day to day. But those who worked on Capitol Hill or for the many agencies? Not so much. I suspect that it's much the same right now, and we've certainly had reports of unhappy State Department and EPA employees, just to mention two agencies. So the longer Trump is in office, the less the day to day work will happen. Consider the consequences.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #16)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 02:06 AM

23. I do not agree and I have remarked here about the practice of ageism being purely discrimination

I believe it is both very unattractive and offensive.

I also believe age is a frame of mind, and researchers say "Physiological age matters more than chronological age."*

Bernie Sanders I think is around 75 and he seems to be able to keep a more active pace than other politicians I have observed. He has not ruled out running for President in 2020, and if he does I will definitely support him.

The article linked below states there is a difference between being old and feeling old. I do think that is critical. I am 66, but I feel the same as when I was in my 40s.

Sam

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/16/health/presidential-age-too-old/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #23)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 03:39 AM

30. I agree that there's a strong "frame of mind" aspect,

and it's beyond obvious that Bernie Sanders has the stamina of a much younger person. Unlike, for instance, Hillary Clinton who looks more than her age and didn't really hold up all that well to campaigning last year. Elizabeth Warren, all of two years younger than Clinton, looks, speaks, and behaves like some one a decade or two younger.

But Bernie Sanders will be 79 in 2020. Elizabeth Warren 71. I would support a run on the part of Warren, but I doubt she'll make it. Too bad.

More to the point, the demands of the Presidency are a lot more than most of us experience in our daily lives. It's long been a truism that Presidents age far beyond their years while in office. As I said above, I'm 68 and I'm constantly astonished at how old my contemporaries are in their health and their behavior. I've gone to two 50th high school reunions (because I belong to two different classes, longish story, not pertinent here) and it's quite sad to see how many of my classmates are dead or don't make it to the reunion because of health issues. And the ones that do often are using canes and are clearly in the category of "elderly". And we're not quite 70 yet.

But it's more than that. It's an issue of older people getting rigid in their mindset, and stuck in the past, convinced that things were so much better in their youth. For about 25 years now I've been railing against people my age who complain bitterly about the younger generation, especially about their work ethic. I remember all too clearly when we Boomers were first entering the job market, and we were told by the adults that we were lazy and incompetent, would never amount to much, and god help this country when we took over. Now I hear the same crap said of the younger generation.

Me? I want to look to the future with that younger generation.

Just my take on this topic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #30)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:15 AM

35. "It's an issue of older people getting rigid in their mindset"

 

This a million times this.

Far too easy to fall into comfortable patterns and to stop thinking outside the box as you get older. The older you get the less likely you are to push the boundaries, to take risk.

Now you could certainly argue that might be a useful quality in a president, but there is also a strong argument on the other side. Wisdom is not something to be scoffed at but then neither is an openness to new ideas.

I would say for me it depends highly on the individual I am discussing. If the person genuinely seems vibrant and in tune with the times
I don't care how old they are. If they are relying on age old party norms to build their platforms I would certainly look at that as an indication that they have passed the point of being receptive to new information.

As someone in their early 50s I can already feel the temptation to play it safe where before I would have taken the chance without the reluctance I would feel now straying from the beaten path.

We evolve. A basketball player 50 years ago could not compete with the players of today. The young learn from the old and improve it is the nature of our existence. That is not to say an older person is useless, for some situations they are exactly the right choice because of their wisdom or experience or even level headed approach, but it is the youth the majority of the time IMHO that pushes us forward.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #35)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 09:08 AM

63. Agree that it depends on the individual


I can't think of any more rigid mindset then the relatively young Tea Party Republicans.

I don't prize risk taking over playing it safe. It depends on the situation. JFK was relatively young and a risk taker regarding the Missile Crisis- I am not at all certain he took the right approach. He played it safe at the Bay of Pigs.

Konrad Adenauer became chancellor of Germany when about 73 when it was totally destroyed by the younger risk taking Adolph Hitler. the much younger Adolph Hitler. Adenauer held the post into his 80s. He was the right leader for the times

My own thought is that age is an arbitrary criterion. I think flexibility and wisdom are important personal characteristics.

I totally agree with your fourth sentence. So it seems to me that voters really need to know the real candidates.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Egnever (Reply #35)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 03:19 PM

93. And a fifty year old basketball player can't compete

other than in an Old Guys game. The physical skills and the stamina are gone.

While being President is a long way from professional sport of any sort, the reality is that as we get older we tend to change, and slow down.

I certainly don't think old people are useless, but I think the job of President of the United States is singularly demanding.

I also think that we, the Democratic Party and our country, badly needs new and younger leadership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #93)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 09:51 PM

127. Alexander the Great was quick and fit. Great physical condition.

After his impulsive and destructive military conquests he died at 32.

A case of youthful vitality run amok. Lots of energy, little judgement.

He did live long enough to have regrets-but of course many died due to his high energy and faulty vision.

Slowing down of reaction may be a prerequisite for good judgement.

Stanislaus Petrov, a relatively young man, slowed down his reaction time, employed his judgement capabilities and is credited with preventing nuclear war in 1983.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #30)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 09:32 AM

67. I think Hillary has plenty of energy and does not seem older than her age.

Both she and Bernie kept up with the campaign, but he was the one I thought was going to collapse during a couple of his speeches! I guess we see what we want to see sonetimes.

It's challenging to weigh experience against fresh ideas. I think both have value, though I see a tendency to de-value experience, workplace relationships, and institutional knowledge in my workplace. I think those things are especially important for a president and that Obama could have benefited by having a few years more experience at the beginning of his term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #67)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:23 AM

78. Agreed!

Where are people getting that Bernie is so much more energetic and younger-seeming than Stamina Queen Hillary?! During the campaign, I remember thinking she seemed way more youthful than him to me. I'm honestly taken back half the time when someone mentions she's a senior citizen because she strikes me as maybe 60 at the oldest. As for cognitive ability, I'm not even 30 and am nowhere near as articulate and don't have half the memory Hillary seems to have!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaM (Reply #67)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 03:20 PM

94. I will politely disagree.

I thing that Hillary looks and seems older than her age. Especially if you compare her to Elizabeth Warren, who could easily pass for a couple of decades younger than Hillary, not the couple of years she actually is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #94)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 03:37 PM

95. When I see them together, they seem the same age.

Strong, intelligent, whip-smart women who were a formidable team.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #94)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:02 PM

128. How are you defining looking older-skin tone, wrinkles?

Are you associating inherited skin characteristics with "looking old or amount of fat cells around in face.

What about "seems older than her age" Can you be more specific.

what about John Kerry vs, G W Bush. do you have an opinion on who looks or seems older or how that might affect performance in office?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #30)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 02:38 PM

90. I respect your opinion

It is interesting that we are so close in age and see this topic so differently.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoindexterOglethorpe (Reply #16)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 07:56 AM

53. I agree

I'm sure that there are always some outliers who would do a good job at an advanced age - I guess. But biology is biology. I, too, am looking at younger Democrats to take on the mantle of leadership.

For the record, I'm in my 50's (so no spring chicken, either .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:55 AM

19. There's frequently worse ageism here on DU,

in my opinion, in the form of blaming older people for the election of various publicans over the years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marybourg (Reply #19)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:03 AM

73. Very Good Point...In

In many threads discussing Trumpanzees a lot of the general consesus seems to be that they"re all 55-plus.

Well, that "Trump Country" guy (who threatened and harrassed a gay couple in Florida) is only 30 years old.

I'll admit, I was shocked to learn the guy was my age. But now that I consider it, bigotry is bigotry, and some people refuse to challenge or question the values they grew up with.

I think prior to Trump, many of us thought that racism, or general bigotry just "dies off" with the people. I remember Oprah saying as much.

But I see now, that's very dangerous thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:57 AM

20. The presidency is an extremely demanding and stressful job

Last edited Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:22 AM - Edit history (1)

The body and mind deteriorate with age. While Clinton, Warren, and Sanders are not typical for their age, stamina and mental acuity do become a concern the older one gets. Also the hope is that whoever runs could stand for reelection, which becomes less likely the older someone is.

While Reagan lived to 94, he suffered from severe dementia.

My view is that all of the potential Democratic candidates you referenced above will be too old to be ideal candidates in 2020. That's not because I don't like older people but a result of concerns over the very real and entirely natural aging process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #20)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:14 AM

34. Are you in favor of an official maximum age for public office?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #34)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:20 AM

36. No

But I am in favor of my right to consider age among other factors when I vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #36)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 05:20 AM

42. We all have the right to use whatever criteria we want

I use experience as mine, and view a candidate as an individual rather than as a member of a specific demographic or group.

Some people won't vote for anyone who has ever been treated with anti-depressants. This rules out a large percentage of the population. I would not do a blanket rule out but instead look at the individual. of course, many politicians might hide information on medication.

FDR did try to keep the public from being aware of the extent of his disability during his first 3 campaigns, fearing the voters would equate his physical disability with his ability to carry out the duties of the office.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 01:59 AM

21. Age per se less important than health.

Last edited Sun Mar 19, 2017, 02:36 AM - Edit history (1)

I want a reasonable chance the person I vote for for president will be able to finish out a four year term and perform their duties.

That said, the party needs fresh faces and energy. We need the 30 and 40 and 50 year olds who are going to help shape policy for the next 50 years and help be around to see it implemented. I love Bernie, but a lot of what I love about his movement is that he's inspiring young people to get involved. We need the elder statesmen and stateswomen- the Clintons, the Bidens,...but we need that new generation of Clintons and Bidens to start to take their place.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 02:00 AM

22. because woman, Elders & many minorities are held to a double standard by deplorable people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 02:07 AM

24. I am 70 and have seen my father who worked hard all his live start slowing

 

down at 75. I have read an article in a reputable newspaper and the author was presenting what is the best age to live to and he said 75. Maybe not for everyone but the old body just starts wearing out. Can't stop it.

It isn't the same for everyone however we have seen very old US Senators hang on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jim Beard (Reply #24)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 03:42 AM

31. For someone in good health

living only to 75 is rather young. I've read that article also, and I think the author is nuts.

Several years ago I did outpatient registration at a local hospital, meaning I registered people who were there for various tests, or x-rays, or MRIs, and various other such things. I really did notice a vast difference in the apparent age of different people. Some seemed much older than their chronological age, others much youngere.

For what it's worth, the smokers definitely age a whole lot faster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 02:36 AM

25. Every time I read "too old" nonsense on DU

I think of President Carter, around 90 at the time, teaching Sunday School days after brain cancer treatment. It's standard to see him ( and his wife) with a hammer, building houses for Habitat for Humanity.

our local tv station has a weekly news segment on senior citizens. I'm constantly amazed at how much these folks have lived through, how hard they still work, how much value they are to their communities, and how much they can still teach the rest of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrank (Reply #25)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 07:52 AM

52. So you are basing your conclusion on the observation of ONE individual. Is that wise?

 

I wish younger candidates than Obama were in office and running for President. But Obama, like Carter, is an outlier.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #52)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:40 AM

60. No, randome, Im basing my conclusion that older people have much to offer on my observation

of older people. President Carter is just one example, but there are many other examples out there.

I also believe younger folks have a lot to offer. But older folks, having lived through much history over many decades, have a special wisdom that I value. I'm 71 but always seek out (and deeply appreciate) the wisdom of elders.

As a side note, one of my dearest and most respected friends is 30.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrank (Reply #60)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:49 AM

61. Of course older people have much to offer. Experience and wisdom should never be discounted.

 

But statistically speaking, most septuagenarians are slowing down, physically and mentally. That doesn't mean we should ignore all of them but it also doesn't mean they are all up to the job, either. I'm 58 and in the best of health. I walk 17 miles a week to work and back with a heavy backpack. I have hair down to my shoulders still.

But I will always be 'wise' enough to defer to those who are more in tune with the current generation. You'll never find me trying to prolong past glory days or being self-centered enough to think I can understand not only my own generation but other generations.

Is that wisdom on my part or just narcissism? I'm open to interpretation on that, as well.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #61)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:24 AM

83. Last reply from me on this, randome.

This is just my viewpoint, but I think there are many examples of older people and younger people not only working together but understanding one another: Bernie rallies, Earth Day clean up, church fundraisers, protests and marches, mentoring, on and on.

It's very important to me to listen to, learn from and try to understand other generations. That's how my grandson taught me about planets and I taught him about the history of maple sugaring. It's how I taught my son to split wood and he taught me about heavy metal music. I'll learn about animal behavior from my granddaughter, human rights from my daughter, and with luck, they'll learn something from me.

That's what I care about, that we're in this....together.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to democrank (Reply #25)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 09:31 AM

66. Konrad Adenauer, 73 who rebuilt Germany after the young Hitler destroyed it

in World War II.

Adenauer took risks but in service of freedom and peace. He remained in office into his 80s.

I think Adenauer's wisdom, his many decades of public service, his ability to deal with other countries,and his character and flexibility was exactly what Germany needed. in 1949.

Hitler was the young risk taker who destroyed his country.

I agree with you on Carter. Democrats have run some exceptional people for public office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 03:32 AM

29. Two words: Jerry Brown. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 03:57 AM

32. Well, Reagan died between the ears a lot sooner than his heart finally gave out

and I'm all for cognitive evaluations of all pols and officials over 75. It just makes sense and yes, I'm getting up there and I'd submit to it if I were in government.

Age is nothing but a number for most of us because we all age at different rates. I've taken care of people who were at the end of the road in their 50s and sharp old folks 50 years their senior.

The main things that are age related are the actuarial tables management is so fond of, telling them when a worker over 50 and at the peak of his productivity and wages becomes uneconomical and can be replaced by a green kid right out of school who will require years on the job to become that productive and have the company come out ahead financially. Yes, these tables exist. Yes, the corporate expiration date is long before Social Security kicks in. The other one is the insurance company, who'd love to start using them again to deny policies to people over 45 because most people that age have at least one health problem that will cost the company a "health loss," meaning they'll have to provide care. They hate that.

Other than that, monitoring cognitive functioning is really the way to go to get dementia out of our government. Age really doesn't work as a determinant for fitness for office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:02 AM

33. I remember Watergate and I'm 51...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:30 AM

38. Allow me to be a bit contrarian on this queston

Democratic nominees for president that go on to win the White House skew younger...considerably younger....than Republican nominees for President that win the White House.

Truman and LBJ were exceptions, of course, but they were also following Presidents that died in office who first took office at a relatively young age.

Leaving aside Truman and LBJ, the oldest Democrat that won his first term in office was Jimmy Carter at the age of 52 (younger than Nixon, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush 41).

EDIT: (In fact, when LBJ became president on 11/22/63, he was younger than Nixon, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush 41 were upon those Republicans first winning election).

Since Woodrow Wilson, 3 Democratic Presidents won their first term of office prior to turning 50 (JFK, Clinton, Obama) and FDR was 50 when he won in 1932.

I think the pattern for Dems who are elected president is very clear...if we can debate why that is, I think this conversation can get somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chitown Kev (Reply #38)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:37 AM

59. History has a story to tell.

Republicans elect "real old retirees" and Democrats elect younger newcomers.

In 2016, the historical "elephant in the room" was we never elect two Democrats in a row since FDR. Still true today.

The Democratic Party is not the party of old white people. Our appeal starts much younger - before we become jaded and cynical, bitter and mad.

I know what ageism is. I got two Millennials living in my house, and they remind me of it everyday!

But you know what age also gives us? Thick damn skin!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chitown Kev (Reply #38)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:20 AM

82. I've brought this up in other threads too

Dem candidates for president do better when they are younger. Look at Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Obama. Republicans seem to do better when candidates are older. I think the reason for this is in part because older people tend to be more conservative and they prefer candidates close to their own age. Younger people tend to be more liberal and they also prefer candidates closer to their own age. People prefer candidates closer to their own ages because they can relate to them better. They have common generational experiences. Also, people like politicians closer to their own age because they tend to have a better understand of the issues that impact them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:51 AM

41. Oh, I'm not even 50

and I remember Watergate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 05:24 AM

44. I'm soon to be 70

and though one's health and energy may vary, I firmly believe someone over 70 beginning a 4 year term is too old to be president. I don't think that's ageism, I think it's common sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lillypaddle (Reply #44)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 05:50 AM

46. I think it is a pre-judgement.

What about disabled candidates? Should FDR never have run?

A blanket rejection of all persons at 70 in a position that requires judgement, just seems strange to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #46)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 07:38 AM

49. One thing is certain

we can agree to disagree about the age thing, but to equate it to people with disabilities is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lillypaddle (Reply #44)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 12:40 PM

85. I am competely comfortable with Hillary in the WH - and she will be 70 in a few months

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #85)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 07:02 PM

106. Me too, but she's an exception in my mind, due to

coming to the job with an incredible amount of knowledge and shallower learning curve than most presidents. She has shown incredible stamina. Obama's peeps said when they were competing in the primary, and circumstances would have them in the same city, same hotel, that Hillary would rock in later than they would and be gone in the AM before they barely stirred. Eight years later she seemed to have close to the same stamina.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moonscape (Reply #106)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 07:38 PM

112. Ginsburg is 84 - her mind is incredibly sharp

Joe Biden is 74

Stating anyone over 70 is not fit to be president is bigotry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #112)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:26 PM

118. Naw, I'm not bigoted towards my peers, nor myself. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moonscape (Reply #118)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 06:56 AM

142. well, bigotry is treating members of a group with intolerance

Saying no one over 70 is fit to be president fits that definition in my opinion.

If I were to say someone is not fit to be president because they were black, I would be soundly (and correctly) criticized, and probably be banned.

However, saying the same thing about one over 70 is perfectly fine here.

Sure, there are many over 70 not fit for that role. Same with many of any group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #85)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 12:51 AM

141. I agree with you

70, for me, is the top line for entering a 4 year term.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 05:30 AM

45. yes! Ageism is common and is yet another strain of bigotry that should not be allowed here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DrDan (Reply #45)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 07:44 AM

50. well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 06:07 AM

47. Aged Leader Konrad Adenauer Chancellor of Germany 1949-6 age 73-87


This is what is possible with a committed experienced and aged Leader in a country and time when the people could not afford the luxury of ageism. He became leader 4 years after the younger and more charismatic Adolph Hitler had left the nation in ruins and in shame.

Adenauer was over 73 when he became Chancellor and 87 when he left office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konrad_Adenauer

Konrad Hermann Joseph Adenauer (German pronunciation: [ˈkɔnʁaːt ˈhɛɐ̯man ˈjoːzəf ˈaːdəˌnaʊ̯ɐ]; 5 January 1876 – 19 April 1967) was a German statesman who served as the first post-war Chancellor of Germany (West Germany) from 1949 to 1963. He led his country from the ruins of World War II to a productive and prosperous nation that forged close relations with France, the United Kingdom and the United States.[1] During his years in power West Germany achieved democracy, stability, international respect and economic prosperity ("Wirtschaftswunder", German for "economic miracle".[2] He was the first leader of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU), a Christian Democratic party that under his leadership became one of the most influential parties in the country.

Adenauer, the Chancellor till age 87 was dubbed "Der Alte" ("the old man". British historian Roy Jenkins says he was "the oldest statesman ever to function in elected office."[3] He belied his age by his intense work habits and his uncanny political instinct. He displayed a strong dedication to a broad vision of market-based liberal democracy and anti-communism. A shrewd politician, Adenauer was deeply committed to a Western-oriented foreign policy and restoring the position of West Germany on the world stage. He worked to restore the West German economy from the destruction of World War II to a central position in Europe, presiding over the German Economic Miracle. He reestablished the German military (Bundeswehr) in 1955. He came to terms with France, which made possible the economic unification of Western Europe. Adenauer opposed rival East Germany and made his nation a member of NATO and a firm ally of the United States.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 07:45 AM

51. Statistically, most people over 70 cannot keep up with the rest of the population.

 

That's simple truth. Put enough septuagenarians together and you will have some that outperform the rest and others who are no longer up to the job. We have enough septuagenarians in Congress that the overall effect is a 'drag' on progress.

Is that ageism or simple observation?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Where do uncaptured mouse clicks go?[/center][/font][hr]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #51)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:05 AM

74. Right, that is why people typically retire between 65 and 70.

Everyone's body starts to decline around then. It's just a fact of life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #51)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:23 PM

130. Seems to me many of the younger members of congress are the drags on progress

- Nunes, Chaffetz, Cruz, King, Perdue...........you want more of them?

Put enough 40 to 50 year olds together and you will have some that outperform the rest and others who are not up to the job

I am not seeing your logic.

To answer your question: It is simplistic observation and ageism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:03 AM

55. I've seen ageism with both "to young" and "too old"...

and IMO shouldn't just be completely about a number.

I've seen younger people who were more competent at their job than their older experienced co-workers. I've seen dementia, ill health and sudden heart attacks/strokes hit both the younger and older. I've also seen young people who couldn't handle major stresses and older people that could handle it beautifully.

Because of this IMO it should be more about the stances and mental/emotional ability to get the job done even if that means delegating more due to physical constraints. I'd certainly vote for a mentally competent; paraplegic, legally blind person or energetic 80 yr old Democrat over a 'seemingly' healthier young RW Republican like Lyin' Ryan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:12 AM

56. the campaigns are so physically draining...

.. I'm younger than any of those mentioned and hell I couldn't go through the grueling process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samnsara (Reply #56)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:35 PM

121. I think Hillary not spending more time on the campaign trail going to

more small towns and cities eventually hurt her. It allowed Trump to drive in the lie of her being ill. I don't know whether a younger woman would have made different decisions. I do think Elizabeth Warren is in rxcellent physical condition and can out campaign younger men and women, but I would still prefer a younger candidate that maintains physical fitness simply because actuarial factors favor that person finishing 8 years as President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_true (Reply #121)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:11 PM

136. If only FDR had been more physically fit-or JFK-or Al Gore-or John Kerry-or Walter Mondale.or

or Ed Muskie.

Oh our long sad history of unfit candidates who did not go to every small town . If only all those Democratic seats had not been lost from 2010 onward, especially in those battleground states...all those unfit Democrats losing to the fit Republicans.

Why can't we have fit candidates like they do? Then we would win even if Putin hates us.

Definitely we must take actuarial data into account . That must be the way the Republicans won that must be it-they went actuarial and elected that bold young Trump who has the stamina to stay up all night........tweeting lies???





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:16 AM

57. Maybe those of us under 60 are just sick of Boomer politicians and think they should step back

We've been re-litigating this generation's young adulthood for my entire life, and it's time to just stop and let a younger generation take the reins.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #57)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 09:48 AM

70. That's one good thing, in about ten years (if we last that long)

A large section of the WASP boomers will mostly be retired. I came in on the tail end of it (58yrs) and found many things already filled up and taken over. You also have to understand that it's just as unfair to blame one person for societies ills as it is a whole group (and probably doesn't make any progress on solving things either way).

It's the way our corporate babysitters who have trained us while mom was sent to her new position as working mom. For fifty years the boob tube was the pacifier and our brains were filled with empty ideas on how "STUFF" was good for us. It was a bad experiment that took our nation from the top in our societies well being down to near the bottom when compared to rest of the industrialized nations.

I don't think most of those older boomers will step back much, they are still mostly convinced they are correct and others should step aside till they get their thing done (whatever their thing is)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #57)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:17 PM

137. Don't think anyone should step back, anyone can step up.


I keep reading answers in search of a problem.

If a potential candidate lacks the energy to step up..............and needs other people to step back.......doesn't seem like the recipe for winning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:31 AM

58. Internet forums and being President don't

require the same skill set or energy. Besides physical health problems that do increase with age
Starting at age 65, the risk of developing the disease doubles every 5 years. By age 85 years and older, between 25% and 50% of people will exhibit signs of Alzheimer's disease.

http://www.asha.org/PRPSpecificTopic.aspx?folderid=8589935289§ion=Incidence_and_Prevalence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:57 AM

62. i often feel like I'm one of the few non Boomers on this forum

But one thing that hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that every generation (or more) has unique challenges that their elders did not. Many elders don't see this as the challenge of a generation and instead use it as fodder for criticism. Many a boomer in some online comments section about student loan debt talks about how they paid for college by (waiting tables, flipping burgers, bagging groceries, etc) and thinks someone today can do the same. What the Boomer on the internet fails to see is the price of tuition compared to the wages these jobs pay and that it is next to impossible.

Instead of showing empathy, they have the 'get off my lawn mentality' and complain that the kids spend too much money on iPhones (ok that was a younger Gen X congressman) and how if you gave up the iPhone you could pay for health insurance, college tuition, a house, etc.

I also find this ironic. Boomers love to criticize millennials for being addicted to social media. Let me point out that the president with a twitter problem was born in 1946.

I'll also say that I find the GOP Gen X politicians to be sociopaths more than the Boomer ones. I'll take W over Paul Ryan any day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to crazycatlady (Reply #62)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:05 AM

81. Same here...

I think there are some generational divides and Baby Boomers seem to think they know what's best for the rest of us just because they are older, but they don't take the time to really understand how people younger than them have to live now.

Baby boomers seem to kind of be in love with their own generation from the way a lot of them talk about it. I know they feel a lot of pride for their role in the civil rights and feminist movements of the 60's/70's, which is completely warranted, but then there were others in their generation that got us into the situation we are in today. Obviously, there are a large amount of baby boomers who weren't into civil rights or feminism at all. It seems their dying wish is to force all younger generations back into the 1950's style of living. It really doesn't make any sense to me why these people are so rabid about pushing back on the progress made in these areas when they aren't going to live long enough to reap much benefit from their efforts. Younger Americans are accustomed to woman working, multiculturalism, having abortion legal, people being openly gay, the concept of racial equality, etc. To young people, what's going on now doesn't make any sense. We are used to living in a world were these things are normal and now we have boomer leaders that want to change all of that for us. To me it seems like a lot of Boomers aren't retiring and making way for the younger generations. I'm almost 40 and I still don't see many people my age in positions of power in government. Even where I work, the majority of my coworkers are boomers. That's really not a good thing for companies. They aren't taking the time to train young people. It seems pretty risky to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 09:15 AM

65. Ageism really started turning up here during this past campaign.

I got a post removed for "re-fighting the last campaign" not long ago, so that's all I'll say about it.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 09:36 AM

68. Welcome to DU

I look forward to your many years of positive contributions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:00 AM

72. It works both ways. Older folks on here have been complaining about young people

not knowing cursive, etc. I honestly would prefer a younger president. I feel 70 is old to start out as a president, especially for a man. If Trump does 8 years, he'll be 78 at the end. Average life expectancy data in the US is 76.3 years for men and 81.2 years for women. Older presidents are just more likely to die in office. However, I do like Al Franken a lot and I think he could be a great presidential candidate because he is smart and he has great comedic wit. I think his background as a comedy writer is a huge strength because humor is awesome way to connect with people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:19 AM

76. You're too young to understand

(wink)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:20 AM

77. Because we are the tenure party and seniority isn't always compatible with change and innovation

Unimaginative choices lead to unimaginative candidates and very often to defeat.

Age isn't the main problem but it's indicative of entitlement. People are much more impatient than they are ageist when it comes to Democrats. Based on the results, I don't think you can blame them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #77)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:27 AM

80. Bingo. "Change and innovation"...the turning of a page

is usually what a Democratic Presidency seems to symbolize...and "youth" in part symbolizes that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #77)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:25 PM

131. so who are the unimaginative candidates?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #131)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:30 PM

132. Use your imagination

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #132)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:44 PM

134. So I will assume there is no there, nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:27 AM

79. Bernie Sanders said in a recent interview that the Dem Party is getting old.

 

What's wrong with speaking the truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:36 AM

84. Old conservative is overly simplistic

 

I went looking for evidence that getting old means someone is more conservative like I thought, but actually found some good evidence dispelling that myth. Like this Oew Research study.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/09/the-politics-of-american-generations-how-age-affects-attitudes-and-voting-behavior/

Further down the article you see a chart showing a voting pattern that's pretty interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 12:58 PM

87. I'm 58 and I think my best years are still ahead of me.

But I'm not going to be doing much of what I was able to do when I was in my 30's and 40's. I'm busy adapting to my diminishing physical and mental capabilities by learning new skills and developing hobbies that match what I can do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 02:16 PM

88. I think that there are a lot of people who have kept up

with things and use their brains their whole life are probably now OK in their 70s. The real breakdowns seems to come in the 80s. Depends on the person.

Retire at 65 and then start serving your community in politics does not seem to be a bad idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 06:14 PM

101. I really don't want to see another president born in the 1940s.

They've already produced three presidents, two of those three being among the worst of all time. The 1930s didn't even get one goddamn president.

I really just want to see this country move beyond these early Boomers they've been saddled with the past 25 years and move on to another age group. Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 06:46 PM

103. It's everywhere. I watch Trevor Noah, I'm laughing along,

and he's making fun of people for their age, who are not much older than I am. I wish someone would spend a day w him going over the EEOC laws and the 14th Amendment. Get a clue.

I'm amazed that it is so pervasive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 07:41 PM

113. Welcome to DU!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 08:19 PM

116. Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:43 PM

133. I think age does matter and especially in 45s case

To ignore age when considering the most demanding job in the country goes against everything the mean tells us about age. But as the saying goes your mileage may vary. The mean does not take into account an invididuals health condition or genetic background.

However, I am very confident in my belief that age is a major factor in 45s disaster of a presidency. (That and him being an evil sob). But it is age plus learning the position of potus.He has never held elected office before and he is in his 70s. He is learning the most difficult position in an entirely new field in his 70s. Do you start going to med school at 70 after years in business-nope. People don't and there is a natural reason. Starting an entire new career and starting at that top of that career in the 70s is a recipe for failure if you are a good hard working person. 45 is not possessed of these traits.

JFK was right when he said politics is a profession and should be treated and respected as one. That is why he encouraged young people to work in public service. I believe 45 was put into office by people who had no clue of the demands of the modern presidency. This is not a job or field you learn in old age with no prior experience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bronxiteforever (Reply #133)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:57 PM

135. Except 45 managed to get where he is at least in part by being the change candidate

that enough voters in swing states were looking for. They didn't care how old he was. Bernie either, for that matter.

Life can be tricky. The last major revolution in this world (Iran) was fully realized by a 77-year-old with no prior political experience. He had credibility and a message that resonated deeply. Sometimes that's all it takes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BeyondGeography (Reply #135)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:25 PM

139. Well I don't ever confuse electability with competence. My point was age does matter in conjunction

with no experience. I stand by that all ayatollahs aside.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bronxiteforever (Reply #133)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:22 PM

138. It it his age or his total lack of qualification.If one's only profession has been con man-

it doesn't matter whether he is 40, 50, 60, 70, or 100.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to delisen (Reply #138)

Sun Mar 19, 2017, 11:26 PM

140. Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manly_Scream (Original post)

Mon Mar 20, 2017, 07:17 AM

143. Age shouldn't preclude anyone

 

But I would like to see new blood over old (preparing for our future) and any judicial picks, age is definitely a factor due to their lifetime appointments. Better to get a liberal judge for 30 years than for 10.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread