Anybody concerned about Democrats' age?

[grasping the after wind]

I am 77 years old. I am physically active and have regular checkups. I have no known health problems and take no medication. However, it is clear to me that I have neither the physical nor mental stamina I had when I was, say, 50. I exercise my professional skills effectively on a part-time basis but I suspect that If I attempted to do so 40 or 50 hours a week continuously for a long period my effectiveness would soon break down. Thinking of that, I consider a person of my age taking up what is probably the most demanding and stressful job in the world and I have serious doubts about it--even if he or she suffered no major health emergencies.

I think you overestimate the demands and stress of the position.

 

[Speedwell]

I think you overestimate the demands and stress of the position.

I think that would depend on whether the incumbent was interested in doing the job properly or not.

 

[DaisyDay]

I do not support Gabbard at any age.

Why is that?

 

[tall73]

As you say, he was a US Senator. That may not put him "ahead" of Tulsi Gabbard, a congresswoman from a very small state, but many people would say that it does. Hardly any people have moved directly from the House to be President, and that's for a reason.

Please explain the reason.

 

[tall73]

I strongly disagree. A congressman has almost no qualifications to be Commander-In-Chief and leader of the free world; a senator has a bit more, if (s)he has been on Foreign Relations or a similar committee.

Representatives are also on committees.

 

[Speedwell]

Representatives are also on committees.

I think you may be right. Haven't I seen something in the news lately about that?

 

[tall73]

I think you may be right. Haven't I seen something in the news lately about that?

Indeed.

 

[tall73]

Tulsi has served on the following committees.

Tulsi Gabbard - Wikipedia

• Committee on Homeland Security (2013–2014)
  • Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security[119][120][121]
• Committee on Armed Services (2013–)
  • Subcommittee on Readiness
  • Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
• Committee on Foreign Affairs (2013–2019)
  • Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific
  • Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa
• Committee on Financial Services (2019–)
  • Subcommittee on National Security, International Development and Monetary Policy
  • Subcommittee on Diversity and Inclusion

 

[tall73]

This may be a qualification or a disqualification, depending on who you ask, but she also was given a five year term on the Council on Foreign Relations. She indicates she disagrees with many in the CFR.

She was a vice chair of the DNC as well, and was critical of Wasserman Schultz regarding the DNC favoring Hillary in the primaries.

 

[Fantine]

Why is that?

The conservatives I know gush over her and say she is the "only" Democrat they would ever think of supporting-enough to make me suspicious. Then I learned she appeared on Fox News for years. Finally, during one of the debates every candidate was asked to name someone with whom they had disagreements but could still get along with.

Most candidates gave an answer I could understand and respect. She said Trey Gowdy.

Trey Gowdy is perhaps best known for spending $45 million of taxpayer money and months of Congress' time investigating Benghazi, and, as usual, finding nothing. If I need to think of an example of a "witch hunt," that's it.

Comparing the Benghazi investigation to the current impeachment investigation is like comparing a home campfire to a California forest fire.

She seems to vote party line, but when I see these things I see red flags.

 

[Albion]

Please explain the reason.

The reason is that the Senate is considered to be more significant in ways that pertain to the presidency--it confirms judges, approves or rejects treaties, and etc. A Senator also represents an entire state, unlike a Congressman. Senators almost always are better known to the voters on a nationwide basis, no matter which state they represent.

 

[Yarddog]

If elected:

Sanders would be 79 at inauguration.
Biden would be 78.

Gabbard would be 39.
Buttigieg would be 39.

These 4 are either too old or too young.
Are you worried about their age?

What is too old or too young?

 

[Andrewn]

What is too old or too young?

Tulsi has served on the following committees.

She's more qualified than Buttigieg. Still, I'd wait to at least 2024 before seriously considering her.

 

[tall73]

The reason is that the Senate is considered to be more significant in ways that pertain to the presidency--it confirms judges, approves or rejects treaties, and etc. A Senator also represents an entire state, unlike a Congressman. Senators almost always are better known to the voters on a nationwide basis, no matter which state they represent.

The question was more about the experience level derived from service therein. In regards to Gabbard, I would think serving on a city council, a state house, and the house of representatives would give a more broad experience than the house and the senate at the federal level, which was Kennedy's experience. Serving at three levels of government helps you understand issues from different angles.

And while a senator represents the whole state, in Tulsi's case, since they only have two for Hawaii, she represents a large portion of it in this case, compared to other states.

Because there are so many representatives the name recognition aspect is certainly different. But that is not an issue of experience. Just like Kennedy's family name recognition is not in itself experience.

Moreover, serving for a fair amount of time in the house, and being involved in the various committees might give more experience than serving in the Senate for only a short time, such as with Barak Obama.

I am less concerned about political experience anyway for the position than some are, but you have to look at each individual rather than categories, to my thinking.

 

[tall73]

The conservatives I know gush over her and say she is the "only" Democrat they would ever think of supporting-enough to make me suspicious. Then I learned she appeared on Fox News for years.

She has consistently stated that she will talk to and with anyone to achieve the goal of reducing regime change wars. This includes dictators, CFR folks, and even people who watch Fox News. Being willing to talk to anyone is not something that disqualifies someone in my book. If she changes her message to fit the group, that is more of a concern.

Finally, during one of the debates every candidate was asked to name someone with whom they had disagreements but could still get along with.

Most candidates gave an answer I could understand and respect. She said Trey Gowdy.

If she can get along with someone is that a bad thing, if she can still maintain disagreement and challenge their ideas? We need more politicians who will not draw up dividing lines of who they work with, but build consensus on issues.

 

[Albion]

She's more qualified than Buttigieg.

On the grounds of experience, certainly. But that's one problem with this issue--it begins with the appeal of a candidate and then turns towards hard and fast qualifications, and the two are not identical.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why would 39 be too young?

35 is the cutoff....

I understand why there'd be concern about people approaching 80 with regards to both physical health and mental faculties.

 

[Albion]

Why would 39 be too young?

35 is the cutoff....

I understand why there'd be concern about people approaching 80 with regards to both physical health and mental faculties.

Well, 80 is also within the legal cutoff (death).

There are reasons for thinking 39 too inexperienced in either government or life or both, although it doesn't apply to every 39 year old, just as 80 is thought by many people to be too old, although some 80 year olds are in better shape than 65 year olds. And any observer is entitled to think that it might be best not to take unnecessary chances in either case.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Well, 80 is also within the legal cutoff (death).

There are reasons for thinking 39 too inexperienced in either government or life or both, although it doesn't apply to every 39 year old, just as 80 is thought by many people to be too old, although some 80 year olds are in better shape than 65 year olds. And any observer is entitled to think that it might be best not to take unnecessary chances in either case.

In terms of political experience, age isn't connected to experience in a lot of cases.

If memory serves, the current president held no elected offices prior to his time as president, and a lot of the folks on the right seem to be pretty happy with him.

You have guys like Buttigieg who has 7 years of political experience even though he's only 37.

Then you have guys like John Delaney who, even though he's 20 years older, actually has less time as an elected politician than Pete.

 

[Albion]

In terms of political experience, age isn't connected to experience in a lot of cases.

I believe that I said there is, in effect, no iron rule about this. However, it is the case that people in their thirties are still learning and have not had the time or opportunity to be wise and comfortable with such duties as come with the presidency. So, if the voters reflect that on election day, it's not a surprise.

If memory serves, the current president held no elected offices prior to his time as president, and a lot of the folks on the right seem to be pretty happy with him.

But he was an international business mogul and had dealings with politicians across the globe, with courts, accountants, and legislatures, etc. A mayor of a middle-sized city in the Midwest, for example, can say he has held an elective office, it's true, but he doesn't have the breadth or level of experience that is equal to this.