Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)

14. No shit. If Clinton and Sanders weren't running there would have been...

Reply to CK_John (Original post)

Tue Dec 13, 2016, 01:10 PM

Dec 2016

bigly talk about autonomous vehicles. Might have even been an October surprise on that topic. Instead we were stuck with two people so old that they are still getting use to the thought of a navigation system.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I wish they had set the age from 35 to 65 in the constitution for [View all] CK_John Dec 2016 OP

In those days they had no idea treestar Dec 2016 #1

Take a look at age at death of marybourg Dec 2016 #8

I don't think they had the idea of being "too old" treestar Dec 2016 #26

Not really. former9thward Dec 2016 #15

Why? ZoomBubba Dec 2016 #2

I wish it weren't so hard to change amendments set in place by men wearing powdered wigs! dubyadiprecession Dec 2016 #3

Yes, nothing protects civil liberties like a document that's easy to change. hughee99 Dec 2016 #6

My bad. Instead of saying hard, i should have said Impossible. dubyadiprecession Dec 2016 #11

Its not impossible. former9thward Dec 2016 #17

I agree philosslayer Dec 2016 #12

As were Aristophanes, Aristotle, and Plato who also rationalized slavery and misogyny. LanternWaste Dec 2016 #32

Interestingly enough, the thoughts can exist in one mind at the same time. NCTraveler Dec 2016 #33

You are abysmally ignorant of US history if you think the framers of the Constitution were fundies Hekate Dec 2016 #20

Bravo! Good post! Kilgore Dec 2016 #29

In 200 years, history will look at those who supported marriage between a man and women yeoman6987 Dec 2016 #28

The 3/5 clause was changed Jose Garcia Dec 2016 #30

14 or fight braddy Dec 2016 #4

Of the 4 "major" candidates in the last election, Gary Johnson would have been the only one hughee99 Dec 2016 #5

Maybe he might make the debates then. CK_John Dec 2016 #7

So you didn't support Hillary Clinton OR Bernie Sanders? philosslayer Dec 2016 #9

You are making a wrong conclusion. CK_John Dec 2016 #10

Since you didn't bother to explain your reasoning, you can understand why. brooklynite Dec 2016 #13

It would avoid trying to change the constitution in today's world. CK_John Dec 2016 #16

No shit. If Clinton and Sanders weren't running there would have been... NCTraveler Dec 2016 #14

You keep harping on this "October surprise topic" but I don't recall CK_John Dec 2016 #18

How many posts equates to harping? NCTraveler Dec 2016 #19

Do you take part in the "Automation Denier" poll, sorry it has timed out. CK_John Dec 2016 #21

No. I was laughing too hard. NCTraveler Dec 2016 #23

If that had been the case in the UK... LeftishBrit Dec 2016 #22

It would have also eliminated a lot of US presidents Retrograde Dec 2016 #24

What? SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #25

Sorry, caffiene hasn't kicked in yet Retrograde Dec 2016 #27

Been there on the caffiene front! n/t SickOfTheOnePct Dec 2016 #34

What objective belief leads you to wish as such? LanternWaste Dec 2016 #31