Poll shows Biden viewed as too old to ‘effectively serve’ another term

ThatRobGuy · Aug 29, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
Ageism isn't a new "ism". It's been widely recognized as unjustified prejudice against the elderly for some time.

But the key word there is "unjustified"

Acknowledgement of biological/physical realities and limitations associated with aging (and their statistical likelihood) isn't unjustified.

The things I've been discussed aren't "unjustified prejudice", they're more along the lines of "prudent discrimination". And there's a crucial distinction between them.

And by discrimination I mean this definition:
recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
: the act of making or perceiving a difference
And not this one:
the unjust or treatment of different categories of people

To provide an example of each, I'll use mental health scenarios.
"I'm not going to hire this person with bipolar disorder because I think people with bipolar are so moody that they'll flake out on work" would be unjustified prejudice.
"We shouldn't allow people with bipolar disorder to own firearms because they're statistically far more likely to have disproportionate levels of suicidal ideation" would be prudent discrimination.

FireDragon76 said:
Only seeing aging in negative terms is typical of ageism.

It's not a shallow "only seeing aging as a negative". It's understanding that for a substantial portion of adults, aging involves diminishing physical and mental abilities...which often times can cancel out the strengths they would otherwise bring to the table with their years of life experience.

For instance, my grandpa in his early 70's was mentally sharp, and had wisdom to share. By the time he was in his 80's, we had to take away his keys because not only was his vision severely impaired, but he was getting lost and on the final incident, the person he was asking for help called the police (who came and found his wallet in his car for him) because he was having a hard time remembering his address and couldn't remember any of his family members' phone numbers.

FireDragon76 said:
Frankly I'm shocked that this prejudice would obtain purchase with Christians. It violates the generally accepted notion in Christianity, that our elders should be honored generally, just as we should honor our father and mother.

Honoring your elders doesn't mean "Let them do everything that a younger person would do".

To put it more succinctly, saying "people over 70 are at greater risk of X" is no more "ageist" than saying "Asian people are statistically way more likely to be lactose intolerant" or "white people are at much greater risk of skin cancer" would be "racist"

rjs330 · Aug 29, 2023

Pommer said:
Besides he’s so busy what with running the International Crime Syndicate he heads.
Pfft

I really don't think Joe is running anything anymore.

dzheremi · Aug 29, 2023

rjs330 said:
I really don't think Joe is running anything anymore.

The real question is: would he be able to identify sarcasm when he sees it? If not, maybe he's too mentally infirm to participate in politics anymore.

FireDragon76 · Aug 30, 2023

ThatRobGuy said:
But the key word there is "unjustified"

Acknowledgement of biological/physical realities and limitations associated with aging (and their statistical likelihood) isn't unjustified.

The things I've been discussed aren't "unjustified prejudice", they're more along the lines of "prudent discrimination". And there's a crucial distinction between them.

And by discrimination I mean this definition:
recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
: the act of making or perceiving a difference
And not this one:
the unjust or treatment of different categories of people

To provide an example of each, I'll use mental health scenarios.
"I'm not going to hire this person with bipolar disorder because I think people with bipolar are so moody that they'll flake out on work" would be unjustified prejudice.
"We shouldn't allow people with bipolar disorder to own firearms because they're statistically far more likely to have disproportionate levels of suicidal ideation" would be prudent discrimination.

It's not a shallow "only seeing aging as a negative". It's understanding that for a substantial portion of adults, aging involves diminishing physical and mental abilities...which often times can cancel out the strengths they would otherwise bring to the table with their years of life experience.

For instance, my grandpa in his early 70's was mentally sharp, and had wisdom to share. By the time he was in his 80's, we had to take away his keys because not only was his vision severely impaired, but he was getting lost and on the final incident, the person he was asking for help called the police (who came and found his wallet in his car for him) because he was having a hard time remembering his address and couldn't remember any of his family members' phone numbers.

Honoring your elders doesn't mean "Let them do everything that a younger person would do".

To put it more succinctly, saying "people over 70 are at greater risk of X" is no more "ageist" than saying "Asian people are statistically way more likely to be lactose intolerant" or "white people are at much greater risk of skin cancer" would be "racist"

That should be handled on a case by case basis, and not as sweeping generalizations about the elderly.

ThatRobGuy · Aug 30, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
That should be handled on a case by case basis, and not as sweeping generalizations about the elderly.

"case by case" evaluation only works for things that currently happening, not things that are statically far more likely to happen in the very near future.

If you take ten 72 year olds, the data shows that four of them will have some level cognitive decline in the subsequent 5 years. That has to be considered when we're talking about locking someone into a position for 4 years.

Think of it sort of like smoking... we know 20% will get lung cancer. There's no concrete way of knowing which 20% it will impact vs. which 80% won't get it when people are still in their 30's, so we discourage it for everyone based on those probabilities.

wing2000 · Aug 30, 2023

dzheremi said:
The real question is: would he be able to identify sarcasm when he sees it? If not, maybe he's too mentally infirm to participate in politics anymore.

Let's test that by having President Biden testify in front of the House "Oversight" Committee.

Hans Blaster · Aug 30, 2023

PsaltiChrysostom said:
For me, as an older GenXer, I just want better representation from my generation. We're the transition generation that grew up before the technology explosion. I simply feel under represented at times not only in government but business as well. But hey, whatever...

We've got Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, ... oh, I see your point.

Fantine · Aug 30, 2023

He has been an effective leader. I would prefer a vigorous primary process because we cannot predict how his mid-80's will be.
Early Alzheimers president Reagan gave us the Iran-Contra scandal, but we got off easy.
Nevertheless, I cannot picture a Republican candidate i could support, and i would prefer Biden to each one.

PsaltiChrysostom · Aug 30, 2023

Hans Blaster said:
We've got Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, ... oh, I see your point.

Dang it... THAT'S the best GenX can come up with??? Fine, I'm just back to the house and closing the door and not coming out again...

dzheremi · Aug 30, 2023

I suspect that no generation after the Boomers is likely to feel that they are particularly well-presented in government, at least not on a national level. I'm an older millennial (est. 1982), and according to some in the media, I'm supposed to be super-excited by an identify with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the other members of what the right wing media sometimes calls 'The Squad' (Ilhan Omar and some others I can't remember). I don't know if I'm just millennial-ing wrong or what, but I feel the exact opposite. Lightweight, unserious political theater like AOC wearing a dress somewhere that says "Tax The Rich" doesn't actually do anything to tax the rich. Being famous for being 'real' or whatever to a bunch of kids on Tiktok or something who probably don't vote in the first place doesn't do anything. So I find what little presentation my generation has in government so far (as of about a year ago, we're at 8% of the House, and 1% of the Senate; as a reminder, Millennials make up the largest single share of the American population, at just under 22%, compared to just under 21% who are Boomers, just under 20% who are Gen Xers, and just under 21% who are Gen Z -- the majority of whom are not legally allowed to vote yet) to be fairly alienating. These people do not represent my concerns or values just because they're around my age. That's now how politics works, unless you happen to particularly taken in by populism (the "so-and-so seems like a 'real' person" non-standard that leads everyday working people to think that multimillionaires like Trump, Biden, Clinton, and all these other pathetic jokes who have the audacity to masquerade as public servants are just like them. No. They're not. Stop that.)

durangodawood · Aug 30, 2023

ThatRobGuy said:
"case by case" evaluation only works for things that currently happening, not things that are statically far more likely to happen in the very near future.

If you take ten 72 year olds, the data shows that four of them will have some level cognitive decline in the subsequent 5 years. That has to be considered when we're talking about locking someone into a position for 4 years.

Think of it sort of like smoking... we know 20% will get lung cancer. There's no concrete way of knowing which 20% it will impact vs. which 80% won't get it when people are still in their 30's, so we discourage it for everyone based on those probabilities.

Youre right.

But I'll roll the dice on Biden over almost anyone who'll go down the path the GOP is currently headed (climate denial and general ecological death wish, hounding teachers out of the profession, govt control of women's bodies, deficit raising tax cuts for the very wealthy, starving of infrastructure, international isolationism.) The genuine GOP moderates dont stand a chance due to the primary voters Trump worship.

I thought I remember a promise from Biden that he'd only serve 1 term? That and a vigorous primary would have been great.

ViaCrucis · Aug 30, 2023

I only voted for Biden because Biden was the only option in 2020. If in 2024 Biden is the only option again, that's who I'll vote for.

But I didn't want Biden as president in 2020, and I don't want him as president in 2024.

But as long as our two-party system makes third party candidates effectively a non-option, and as long as the two political parties in power play these political games, choice is limited.

I supported Bernie Sanders in 2016, but voted for Clinton even though she was the worst choice except for the other guy running.
I supported Bernie Sanders in 2020, but voted for Biden for the same reason.
And it appears that I'll have to vote for Biden again, in spite of the fact that I don't want to.

And this appears to be how things will keep playing out in the foreseeable future of American presidential elections, until either our democracy finally implodes under the weight of all this nonsense, or sweeping changes are made.

Perhaps this sounds cynical, but I think it's about time that both the Democratic and Republican Parties are laid to rest. Or at the very least major election reform that can undo this two-party hegemony over American politics.

-CryptoLutheran

durangodawood · Aug 30, 2023

ViaCrucis said:
.....
Perhaps this sounds cynical, but I think it's about time that both the Democratic and Republican Parties are laid to rest. Or at the very least major election reform that can undo this two-party hegemony over American politics.

-CryptoLutheran

Our election system rationally games out to a 2 party system. If D's and R's go away theyll be replaced by X's and Y's, after a shake out period, who will look pretty much the same as the parties they replaced. But maybe better mascots. Armadillos and Kittens, for example.

If we want more parties, we need to change:
1. the election system to something like ranked preference voting, or
2. the system of government so that congress is a party-slate percentage, or similar.
or both.

ViaCrucis · Aug 30, 2023

durangodawood said:
Our election system rationally games out to a 2 party system. If D's and R's go away theyll be replaced by X's and Y's, after a shake out period, who will look pretty much the same as the parties they replaced. But maybe different mascots. Armadillos and Kittens, for example.

If we want more parties, we need to change:
1. the election system to something like ranked preference voting, or
2. the system of government so that congress is a party-slate percentage, or similar.
or both.

I completely agree. We've always suffered from a two-party hegemony, and simply replacing them won't really do much good. Ranked preference or something like it is something I'd happily advocate.

-CryptoLutheran

RestoreTheJoy · Aug 30, 2023

HARK! said:
President Joseph R. Biden is too old to “effectively serve” another four-year term, according to a new poll.

The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll found more than three-quarters of adults surveyed, or 77%, believe Mr. Biden, 80, is too old to run for reelection.

Poll shows Biden viewed as too old to ‘effectively serve’ another term

President Joe Biden is too old to “effectively serve” another four-year term, according to a new poll.

www.washingtontimes.com

Agreed, but it isn't only about number of years lived. Biden is clearly failing and being directed by others. One only need listen to him speak for a few minutes to detect this. He is often confused, and must be directed as to his next step, which is why he has been limited to a short window of time in any given day to appear, and generally reads prepared statements so he doesn't get in trouble spouting falsehoods. Others, just as old, like Bernie Sanders, are completely and clearly in control of their faculties.

It's not about age. Biden needs to retire. He has spent a year on vacation (when number of days are added, well over 300) already in his 2 years of being President.

RestoreTheJoy · Aug 30, 2023

durangodawood said:
Our election system rationally games out to a 2 party system. If D's and R's go away theyll be replaced by X's and Y's, after a shake out period, who will look pretty much the same as the parties they replaced. But maybe better mascots. Armadillos and Kittens, for example.

If we want more parties, we need to change:
1. the election system to something like ranked preference voting, or
2. the system of government so that congress is a party-slate percentage, or similar.
or both.

Mostly we need to remove ALL funding from campaigns. The people who think they have the best ideas should run on C-Span in a series of debates or speeches (C-Span has no commentary) and then we vote. We need the best people with the best ideas, not the corporately purchased individuals who raised the most money to run ads telling us how bad the other guy is.

durangodawood · Aug 30, 2023

RestoreTheJoy said:
Mostly we need to remove ALL funding from campaigns. The people who think they have the best ideas should run on C-Span in a series of debates or speeches (C-Span has no commentary) and then we vote. We need the best people with the best ideas, not the corporately purchased individuals who raised the most money to run ads telling us how bad the other guy is.

I'm actually pretty close to you on this.

But how do you overcome the campaign money = free speech constitutional impediment that a conservative supreme court has burdened us with?

RestoreTheJoy · Aug 30, 2023

durangodawood said:
I'm actually pretty close to you on this.

But how do you overcome the campaign money = free speech constitutional impediment that a conservative supreme court has burdened us with?

Good question. All that is happening is that big money interests are purchasing politicians who then pave the way for policies that benefit them. Somehow this has to die. And no, it's not just a conservative Supreme Court thing. It has always happened since campaigns began.

durangodawood · Aug 30, 2023

RestoreTheJoy said:
Good question. All that is happening is that big money interests are purchasing politicians who then pave the way for policies that benefit them. Somehow this has to die. And no, it's not just a conservative Supreme Court thing. It has always happened since campaigns began.

Of course campaigns have always scrounged for money. I dont really blame them for playing by the rules theyre given.

But when congress tried to put some limits on it, the conservative majority on the supreme court shut it down based on their principle that political spending = speech.

RestoreTheJoy · Aug 30, 2023

durangodawood said:
Of course campaigns have always scrounged for money. I dont really blame them for playing by the rules theyre given.

But when congress tried to put some limits on it, the conservative majority on the supreme court shut it down based on their principle that political spending = speech.

It's a tenuous argument in my view. Speech is speech. Buying politicians isn't really "speech". Citizens United should be overturned, in my view, The Court found that the "state’s interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption" wasn't compelling enough. I think, given the vast corruption we are living under now, it is vastly compelling. The specious argument was that independent expenditures it banned were by definition "not coordinated or prearranged with a candidate or a campaign" and therefore was not a direct quid pro quo, in which votes are exchanged for money.

Although such expenditures could ingratiate a corporation with and lead to greater access to a candidate, “ingratiation and access…are not corruption.” Yeah, sure. Let's avoid that appearance of impropriety altogether and quit pretending corporations are people. People are people and can vote and speak as they like (well, they could, prior to 2020 when censorship was ubiquitous).

Poll shows Biden viewed as too old to ‘effectively serve’ another term

Part of the IT crowd

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

E pluribus unum

Raised by bees

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

re Member

Confessional Lutheran

re Member

Confessional Lutheran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

re Member

Well-Known Member

re Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency