Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

1141517192040

Comments

  • One snag with single-payer healthcare which I have not heard mentioned much is reproductive healthcare. There are a bunch of very loud Christians and very rich lobbyists that will make a huge stink if someone proposes spending tax dollars on abortion or contraception. In fact spending federal dollars for abortion is currently illegal. (I believe at the moment each state decides what their Medicaid plan will cover, contraception-wise.) If contraception and abortion are included in Medicare-for-all, it probably can't pass Congress unless Democrats have a supermajority in both houses. And then as soon as Republicans are back in, they'll try to defund or repeal it.

    So if we do eventually end up with Medicare-for-all (God willing!) how are we going to either a) arrange for affordable private-funded reproductive coverage for those who wish it or b) disentangle ourselves from Mike Pence and his ilk and start funding healthcare like a civilized country?
  • Twilight wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Healthcare isn't breakfast cereal or cars. What we need is everyone to have it. Not make it more "affordable" or "accessible" but a guaranteed right. Single payer does that, nothing else does.
    Americans hate that idea. Because they will be paying for someone who doesn't deserve it.
    goddamn freeloading bastards!

    Seriously? I don't think we're that bad.

    I've heard Americans gripe about people getting something free that they themselves have had to work for, like food stamps or subsidized housing, but if everyone gets free medical care, I just can't imagine anyone but the most die-hard libertarian complaining.

    Besides, who would they think doesn't deserve healthcare? Even the ones who begrudge food stamps are usually cart snoopers who saw someone pay for a steak with food stamps. They don't seem to resent the hamburger.
    Then tell me why the resistance to getting rid of a system that gives less at a higher cost than any other 1st world country and many 3rd world ones.

  • Insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyists? Very little policy is driven by what the public actually want.
  • One snag with single-payer healthcare which I have not heard mentioned much is reproductive healthcare. There are a bunch of very loud Christians and very rich lobbyists that will make a huge stink if someone proposes spending tax dollars on abortion or contraception. In fact spending federal dollars for abortion is currently illegal. (I believe at the moment each state decides what their Medicaid plan will cover, contraception-wise.) If contraception and abortion are included in Medicare-for-all, it probably can't pass Congress unless Democrats have a supermajority in both houses. And then as soon as Republicans are back in, they'll try to defund or repeal it.

    So if we do eventually end up with Medicare-for-all (God willing!) how are we going to either a) arrange for affordable private-funded reproductive coverage for those who wish it or b) disentangle ourselves from Mike Pence and his ilk and start funding healthcare like a civilized country?

    Federally-funded abortions would cause a huge fight, but not federally funded contraception, I think (although emergency contraception, like the morning after pill, might). Actually, having the government pay for birth control would solve a problem with Obamacare where religious universities and hospitals that largely served people outside their denomination were required to pay for insurance that covered contraception for employees, including emergency contraception. This led to legal challenges, including from for-profit employers like Hobby Lobby, which led to the Supreme Court ruling that even for-profit companies (if they are "closely held") could not be compelled to pay for insurance that covered contraception if that violated the religious beliefs of the owners (hence the "closely held" part - it's hard to gauge the religious beliefs of thousands of shareholders!).

    If the government pays for contraception rather than employers (through insurance), the Supreme Court said in its ruling that that would be constitutional. Also, although the most conservative religious groups and leaders might still fight tax dollars going to fund contraception (especially if it's emergency contraception because a lot of them think that's potentially abortion even if scientifically they're mostly wrong), most people who feel icky about companies and institutions being forced to buy contraception coverage against their will would not be as in arms about it being part of a government insurance plan (if they're conservative, they'd be more likely to be in arms about the whole "socialized medicine" thing rather than the contraception bit).
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Exactly. Our political economy is currently driven by two basic principles:

    1. How little can we give ordinary human taxpayers before they come after us with torches and pitchforks?

    and

    2. How much do we have to fork over to our corporate overlords donors and sponsors in order to keep our steady full-time jobs of running for re-election?
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Twilight wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Healthcare isn't breakfast cereal or cars. What we need is everyone to have it. Not make it more "affordable" or "accessible" but a guaranteed right. Single payer does that, nothing else does.
    Americans hate that idea. Because they will be paying for someone who doesn't deserve it.
    goddamn freeloading bastards!

    Seriously? I don't think we're that bad.

    I've heard Americans gripe about people getting something free that they themselves have had to work for, like food stamps or subsidized housing, but if everyone gets free medical care, I just can't imagine anyone but the most die-hard libertarian complaining.

    Besides, who would they think doesn't deserve healthcare? Even the ones who begrudge food stamps are usually cart snoopers who saw someone pay for a steak with food stamps. They don't seem to resent the hamburger.
    Then tell me why the resistance to getting rid of a system that gives less at a higher cost than any other 1st world country and many 3rd world ones.

    I think there is definitely a current in American thought that doesn't want give anything to the undeserving, which is code for their out-group (which in America is often code for race and class, and perhaps religion and political belief as well). Although with my private insurance, I don't have any say over who else is covered by my provider -- I can't dictate that they give preferential treatment to gay 30 something Anglo-Catholic liberals (although if I could, I would make sure that, if any of our fraternity ever needed hospitalization, they should at least have a minibar). But for some reason, many Americans are less averse to paying for others when its done through a private corporation than through the government. Intellectually, this makes no sense. Emotionally, I think it may be because so much health insurance is done through employers, meaning that people may feel like their helping to insure their colleagues, who are part of their in-group. But that's just a guess.

    I also think that a much broader swathe of Americans don't realize how bad their healthcare system is, in part because it's all of they've known.

    And, in truth, the American healthcare system is not at all bad by many measures. We have some of the best hospitals and medical schools in the world. We have no shortage of doctors. Very good medicine is done everyday in America, and not just for wealthy patients. Although chronic illnesses are often left untreated (which is a major problem), hospitals are obligated to treat anyone in a life-threatening emergency. The fact that they then stick their patients with enormous bills, which everyone knows will likely never be paid in many cases (because they can't be), is another huge problem.

    Speaking from a relative position of privilege, the biggest difference between my healthcare in England and in the USA hasn't really been the cost (I have pretty good health insurance, which is paid entirely by employer). It's been how difficult everything is in the U.S. Booking an appointment with my GP in England was a breeze compared to the complicated triangulations between patient, physician's office, and insurance company in the U.S. And I know from relatives in the medical profession that the whole system is often just as infuriating for most physicians.

    America has a healthcare system that's not really set up to benefit either patients or (for the most part) physicians and other healthcare professionals. Nor does it benefit society as a whole. The only people it really benefits are the senior executives of insurance companies and their investors.

    I am a capitalist. I believe in private enterprise in many fields. But American healthcare seems to me a pretty clear example of private enterprise being put at odds with public good. But many Americans don't see it that way.
  • One snag with single-payer healthcare which I have not heard mentioned much is reproductive healthcare. There are a bunch of very loud Christians and very rich lobbyists that will make a huge stink if someone proposes spending tax dollars on abortion or contraception. In fact spending federal dollars for abortion is currently illegal. (I believe at the moment each state decides what their Medicaid plan will cover, contraception-wise.) If contraception and abortion are included in Medicare-for-all, it probably can't pass Congress unless Democrats have a supermajority in both houses. And then as soon as Republicans are back in, they'll try to defund or repeal it.

    So if we do eventually end up with Medicare-for-all (God willing!) how are we going to either a) arrange for affordable private-funded reproductive coverage for those who wish it or b) disentangle ourselves from Mike Pence and his ilk and start funding healthcare like a civilized country?

    As an aside, although we do have mandatory single-payer healthcare in Canada, there are a lot of things it doesn’t cover - notably dentistry and pharmaceuticals, unless provided in an inpatient hospital context. All this stuff, if it’s covered at all, is usually covered through employer-sponsored supplementary plans.

    I’m a bit surprised at the push specifically for single-payer. It’s how we do it north of the border, but it’s not remotely the only way of ensuring that everyone gets coverage, and I would have thought that some kind of two-tier arrangement that allowed people to keep private insurance if they really want it is much more likely to actually get through Congress.

  • Twilight wrote: »
    I've heard Americans gripe about people getting something free that they themselves have had to work for, like food stamps or subsidized housing, but if everyone gets free medical care, I just can't imagine anyone but the most die-hard libertarian complaining.

    There will still be people complaining. They will be people who feel that in the free medical care regime, they have less choice, longer waiting times, or otherwise a worse service than they thought they were getting in their paid-for healthcare regime, but now that they are taxed to provide the free care, they can't afford to go private.

    Some of their complaints may even be justified.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't know if this makes sense in an American context, but it strikes me that the Dems spending time talking about slightly different health policies is pointless because whoever becomes President will have to negotiate the details with Congress.
    I think it makes sense. It seems to be anathema to talk about working with “the other side,” and I understand why in the current political climate. But it’s really not enough to tell me your plan for health care. That’s great and all, but tell me your plan for getting a Republican Senate to enact what you propose.
    It is all in the timing: It seems to be anathema to talking about working with the other side during the primaries when the only voters you are attempting to sway happen to be of one political party. For a Democrat to try to get the primary votes of Democrats by saying "I will compromise with Republicans" would be political suicide.

    Now, once you get the nomination, of course, you can and should wax poetic about how you are willing to reach across the aisle and listen to the other side, etc. etc., because by then you have the Democrat vote sewn up and the job is to lure as many unaffiliated or Republican votes as possible. And that voting pool wants to hear the politician talk that way. Heck, I think even Trump, after he had the Republican nomination, spoke of being confident in his ability to "work with Democrats." Of course, now we know that, by "work with" he meant "bully them until they follow my dictates to the letter" but I dare say he got a few votes from unaffiliated voters who actually believed that he would be bipartisan.

  • I have heard people complain that their plan costs more because it covers pregnancy and they are male or not planning on having children, so why should their health care cost to cover pregnancy if they are not going to get pregnant. Yes, it boggles the mind.
  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't know if this makes sense in an American context, but it strikes me that the Dems spending time talking about slightly different health policies is pointless because whoever becomes President will have to negotiate the details with Congress.
    I think it makes sense. It seems to be anathema to talk about working with “the other side,” and I understand why in the current political climate. But it’s really not enough to tell me your plan for health care. That’s great and all, but tell me your plan for getting a Republican Senate to enact what you propose.
    It is all in the timing: It seems to be anathema to talking about working with the other side during the primaries when the only voters you are attempting to sway happen to be of one political party. For a Democrat to try to get the primary votes of Democrats by saying "I will compromise with Republicans" would be political suicide.
    Yeah, I get that. But as a Democrat who will be voting in the primaries, I’d like to hear not just what a candidate’s plan is, but how the candidate thinks she or he can get that plan enacted.

  • Hedgehog wrote: »
    Now, once you get the nomination, of course, you can and should wax poetic about how you are willing to reach across the aisle and listen to the other side, etc. etc., because by then you have the Democrat vote sewn up and the job is to lure as many unaffiliated or Republican votes as possible. And that voting pool wants to hear the politician talk that way. Heck, I think even Trump, after he had the Republican nomination, spoke of being confident in his ability to "work with Democrats." Of course, now we know that, by "work with" he meant "bully them until they follow my dictates to the letter" but I dare say he got a few votes from unaffiliated voters who actually believed that he would be bipartisan.

    I think Trump even bragged during the 2016 primary season that he would work well with Democrats because he had donated so much money to them! He said that he had donated to all sides and knew them well and that he, meanwhile, was not a politician and had his own money so he would not be beholden to donors and would be able to take on corrupt Washington. It made as little sense then as it does now. Less sense now, of course, that he has been raising crazy sums of money for his reelection campaign almost from the moment he took office.

  • Federally-funded abortions would cause a huge fight, but not federally funded contraception, I think ...

    If the government pays for contraception rather than employers (through insurance), the Supreme Court said in its ruling that that would be constitutional.

    Respectfully, I think this is optimistic. Evangelicals and conservative Catholics have been drifting closer together on reproductive issues, and there's been misinformation going around that hormonal birth control methods are abortifacients. (You know and I know that's not true, but we're not the ones who count.)

    Constitutional? If there's one thing the religious right has shown over the past forty years it's that they don't give a hoot what's constitutional and what isn't. And even if we do currently have a constitutional right to birth control, so many conservative judges have been added to the federal courts over the past couple years, I'm sure they will be able to find someone to overturn it.
  • RossweisseRossweisse 8th Day Host, Hell Host
    Ruth wrote: »
    I want a public option. I don't want to have to depend upon my employer for health insurance.
    I agree. But, according to the polls I keep seeing, a lot of people do want their employer's insurance. I simply think we should maintain options.
    ...Any evidence for that? Who are "the people we need to win over"? In polls on the 2020 general election, Sanders currently outperforms Biden in Michigan. He does about as well as Biden in Wisconsin and PA.

    Also, Biden and Sanders are 1 year apart. ...
    I'm not a fan of either one, and age is only a part of it. (For one thing, Biden is a serial plagiarist.) They poll well amongst Democrats, but we need to reach people like Never Trump Republicans and other centrists.
    ... ACA is not single payer, so this is pretty irrelevant. The ACA was a half-measure that created problems as it solved others. It helped a lot of people and made things harder for others. It was, overall, a modest improvement over the horrendous system we have, which means the system remained horrendous. ...
    Yes, the insurance companies were allowed to have far too great a say in how it was set up, so too many policies dictated which providers their customers could use. Obama still lied about it.

    I'm in favor of single payer. I have terminal breast cancer, and I'm here to tell you that dealing with chiseling insurance companies and the host of providers who all bill separately for every single visit, test, and procedure is a nightmare, especially when suffering from chemo brain.

    However, Job 1 is to get the incumbent out of there. I think that means staying on the centrist side of things.

  • Now is the time to appeal to donors, soon it will be time to appeal to Registered Democrats. Then it will be time to move towards the centre and win the election. Then comes the really hard bit.
  • ...
    I am a capitalist. I believe in private enterprise in many fields. But American healthcare seems to me a pretty clear example of private enterprise being put at odds with public good. But many Americans don't see it that way.

    Well, if capitalism could provide health care for all, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Health care is not a free market, for a whole host of reasons, starting with e.g. not being able to wait for a sale or stock up when prices are low. Honestly, I can't think of any non-insulting reason why so many Americans won't, can't, or don't understand that.

    Dr. Rand Paul - whose medical specialty is selling prescription sunglasses - constantly brings up Lasik as an example of a successful free market in health care, ignoring the fact that nobody dies because they couldn't afford Lasik. 😡

    Capitalism is a terrific system for fulfilling the never-ending greed of rich people. However, it will never provide the basics of a civilized society - health care, housing, education, etc. - for everyone, simply because there isn't a business case for supplying the basic human needs of ordinary citizens. Again, if there was, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

  • I don't see how state intervention in an essentially market economy changes the system to something other than capitalism. I am just not prepared to accept the definition of right wing market purists.

    In the early 1980's our telecommunications and utilities were all publicly owned. Govt owned corporations participated alongside private corporations in the banking, airline and military manufacturing sectors. If you asked what sort of system we had, it was a mixed economy. i.e. capitalist with state intervention.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I don't see how state intervention in an essentially market economy changes the system to something other than capitalism. I am just not prepared to accept the definition of right wing market purists.

    Quite. There is a bizarre tendency in the US to describe mixed economies as socialist. I think this probably started by right-wing propaganda, but seems to have been adopted by many on left, who rave about how they want to be "socialists" just like Scandanavians. This seems to ignore the rather considerable portions of the economies of every Scandinavian country that are, in fact, examples of free-market capitalism. (Hint: Volvo, Ericsson, and Carlsberg are all publically-traded companies, whilst Ikea is owned by one family).

    I don't think that anybody, with the exception of a few hardline adherents of the Austrian School and an equally small number of unreconstructed Marxists, seriously disputes that mixed economies are a necessity in contemporary societies. Most debates are about where the balance lies, not whether there should be a balance. But it would be very hard to tell this by listening to politicians or the popular press in the United States. Sometimes it can be just as hard in the UK, where journalists often present every economic decision as if it were a choice between nationalization or complete deregulation.



  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    ... we need to reach people like Never Trump Republicans and other centrists.

    Never Trump Republicans are not going to vote for Democrats in any kind of large numbers, and there aren't tons of them in the first place. We need to make sure young people, black people, and lefties turn out in droves. Democrats need to turn out their base in places like Michigan and Wisconsin, which means we need a candidate who can connect with people and get them excited about voting.

    And centrists need to wake up and smell the climate change. Jay Inslee is not going to be president, but everything he said in the debate about Biden's "plan" for climate change is right.
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    As important as it is to make Donald Trump go away, I can’t help but think that the most consequential player that needs to be voted out of office is Mitch McConnell. As much damage as Donald Trump has done, a lot of it image and norm based, or at the bequest of presidential orders that are easily ordered against, again. But McConnell has systematically damaged the interior working of the government, and he’s been doing it for years. Honestly, I think him being voted out of office, and the Democrats taking the Senate of course, is probably more important, in some respects, then getting Trump out. Trump isn’t a politician, and he doesn’t know how to make government work for him. McConnell does and he’s scary at it.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    As important as it is to make Donald Trump go away, I can’t help but think that the most consequential player that needs to be voted out of office is Mitch McConnell. As much damage as Donald Trump has done, a lot of it image and norm based, or at the bequest of presidential orders that are easily ordered against, again. But McConnell has systematically damaged the interior working of the government, and he’s been doing it for years. Honestly, I think him being voted out of office, and the Democrats taking the Senate of course, is probably more important, in some respects, then getting Trump out. Trump isn’t a politician, and he doesn’t know how to make government work for him. McConnell does and he’s scary at it.

    Ditch Mitch is crucial, though I'd say the threats posed by President Orangina and Sen. McTurtle are different-but-equal. Send money to Amy McGrath for her campaign. I have.
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    Don’t you mean Moscow Mitch? That’s his preferred sobriquet.
  • Ohher wrote: »
    Ditch Mitch is crucial, though I'd say the threats posed by President Orangina and Sen. McTurtle are different-but-equal. Send money to Amy McGrath for her campaign. I have.


    I have also.




  • RossweisseRossweisse 8th Day Host, Hell Host
    ECraigR wrote: »
    As important as it is to make Donald Trump go away, I can’t help but think that the most consequential player that needs to be voted out of office is Mitch McConnell. ...
    Good point. If Moscow Mitch's recent behavior can't be counted as outright treasonous, it's strictly on a technicality. I will certainly make my widow's mite contribution to his opponent.


  • Does anyone know how the people of Kentucky feel about Mitch McConnell?
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    Does anyone know how the people of Kentucky feel about Mitch McConnell?

    He won his last election by 56%-40%. I know he’s the least popular senator in the country. Professor Google says that in February of this year his approval was 33%. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/431002-poll-33-of-kentucky-voters-approve-of-mcconnell
  • I saw an interview with his Democratic challenger on PBS, interviewed by Judy Woodruff no less. I hope the left of the Party decide to leave her to run her own race.
  • ECraigRECraigR Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I saw an interview with his Democratic challenger on PBS, interviewed by Judy Woodruff no less. I hope the left of the Party decide to leave her to run her own race.

    Yes, quite. A progressive can’t win that seat, and I’m speaking as a card carrying communist. But the seat must be won, really at any cost. A blue dog Democrat would be better at this point.

  • McConnell fell and broke his shoulder over the weekend. I don't wish him ill, but maybe he could sensibly take time off to rest? (He's 77. Rough at any age, of course.) What do they do if a member of Congress has to be out for a while? Can someone step in as a temporary substitute? Or is the member's seat just empty?

    Thx.
  • I'm sorry to hear that. A few years ago a congregation I was with had a spate of men falling off ladders trying to clean gutters, and a collection of worried wives trying not to say 'I told you to get someone in'.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    McConnell fell and broke his shoulder over the weekend. I don't wish him ill, but maybe he could sensibly take time off to rest?

    I've been sending thoughts and prayers.
  • Hey, if imprecatory prayers are good enough for David...
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    Golden Key wrote: »
    McConnell fell and broke his shoulder over the weekend. I don't wish him ill, but maybe he could sensibly take time off to rest? (He's 77. Rough at any age, of course.) What do they do if a member of Congress has to be out for a while? Can someone step in as a temporary substitute? Or is the member's seat just empty?

    Thx.

    I think it's just empty. And I think that's a major flaw in our system. A member of Congress needs to resign or pass away (or be expelled, but that has only happened twice since the Civil War) in order for them to be replaced, I think. Does anyone know for sure?
  • RuthRuth Admin Emeritus
    It's just empty. Members of Congress are absent all the time for all sorts of reasons, and there is no mechanism for filling their seats.
  • Is there someone who fills in as Senate Majority Leader (or Speaker if this happens in the House of Representatives)?
  • RossweisseRossweisse 8th Day Host, Hell Host
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    I've been sending thoughts and prayers.
    I note you don't specify what kind of thoughts and prayers...


  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    I've been sending thoughts and prayers.
    I note you don't specify what kind of thoughts and prayers...


    LOL!
    (I miss the "Killing Me" smiley.)
  • Ruth wrote: »
    It's just empty. Members of Congress are absent all the time for all sorts of reasons, and there is no mechanism for filling their seats.

    We need a constitutional amendment, if need be, to address this. We either need members of Congress to have running mates on the ballot with them who serve as alternates or some other way of making sure that if a senator enters a coma that that state won't go for as long as almost six years without a voting senator.
  • We need a constitutional amendment, if need be, to address this. We either need members of Congress to have running mates on the ballot with them who serve as alternates or some other way of making sure that if a senator enters a coma that that state won't go for as long as almost six years without a voting senator.

    John McCain was on medical leave pretty much for a year before he died last August.

  • The fracturing of the Republican Party seems most apparent when there is tragedy.

    In the wake of the recent mass shootings, the Ohio Republican Party leader has called on a Republican state representative to resign for blaming the Dayton shooting on...well, pretty much anybody who isn't a far-right Republican. Meanwhile, over in Nebraska, the Nebraskan Republican Party has called on a Republican state legislator to leave the party because he accused the Republican Party of enabling white supremacy and stoking racism.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Sounds like Ohio and Nebraska could just trade Repugnican reps . . .
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited August 2019
    It's been about a month since my last state of the Democratic Primary assessment so here's an update. We still have the same five real contenders as last time but their relative spacing has changed a bit.

    The Front Runner
    • Joe Biden

    Biden seems to have made up most of the ground lost after the first debate, currently polling anywhere from the mid-twenties to the low thirties.

    The Second Tier
    • Bernie Sanders
    • Elizabeth Warren

    Sanders and Warren both currently poll in the upper teens. Warren is on an upward trend while Sanders is mostly holding steady.

    The Long Shots
    • Pete Buttigieg
    • Kamala Harris

    Most of Harris' bounce from the first debate has evaporated and she's now polling mostly in the single digits with Buttigieg. Both these candidates consistently poll north of 5% which distinguishes them from the list below.

    No Chance/Running for Cabinet
    • Michael Bennet
    • Corey Booker
    • Steve Bullock
    • Julián Castro
    • Bill de Blasio
    • John Delaney
    • Tulsi Gabbard
    • Kirsten Gillibrand
    • John Hickenlooper
    • Jay Inslee
    • Amy Klobuchar
    • Wayne Messam
    • Seth Moulton
    • Beto O'Rourke
    • Tim Ryan
    • Joe Sestak
    • Tom Steyer
    • Marianne Williamson
    • Andrew Yang

    All the candidates on the above list are polling at or below 2% support.

    The Dropouts
    • Mike Gravel
    • Richard Ojeda
    • Eric Swalwell

    These candidates have ended their run for the nomination. Since the last assessment Mike Gravel has been added to the list. He put his nearly immeasurable support behind both Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, saying one should be president and the other should be vice president and they should work it out between them which was which.

    Despite the large number of candidates running the Democratic primary seems to have congealed to five choices. All of these candidates are probably in Iowa right now for the opening weekend of the State Fair, admiring the butter cow and trying to eat a corn dog with some sense of dignity.
  • So the top three are still the ones over 70 (and it's still a year and a half until the 2021 Inauguration, and five and a half years until the end of the elected person's term in office -- do the math). Joe and Bernie are older than the current occupant of the Oval Office. Reagan turned 70 the month after his first inauguration -- remember how doddering he became while still in office?
  • I'm relieved to read that the butter cow is spread over a mesh frame, because it was upsetting to me that so much butter should be wasted.

    [I missed you, Croesos! I wrote several posts that weren't followed by the usual Croesos Fact Check.]
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    IIRC the story goes on to say that most of the butter does get used.
  • Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    So the top three are still the ones over 70 (and it's still a year and a half until the 2021 Inauguration, and five and a half years until the end of the elected person's term in office -- do the math). Joe and Bernie are older than the current occupant of the Oval Office. Reagan turned 70 the month after his first inauguration -- remember how doddering he became while still in office?

    Hey, I turned 70 this past June. I have to say I still have my mental health faculties and I know a good many other people above 70 still do. Just because Reagan began showing dementia especially during his second term does not mean every 80-year-old needs to be locked up in the G ward.

    That said, I do think it is time for the younger generations to take over. We Baby Boomers have made enough of a mess of governance. Let the other generations take over now.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    That said, I do think it is time for the younger generations to take over. We Baby Boomers have made enough of a mess of governance. Let the other generations take over now.
    Just a reminder that some Baby Boomers are still in their (late) 50s.

    The talk of “generations” is misplaced, in my opinion. I know many “young” people in their 70s and 80s even, and some “old” people in their 40s. I’m not saying age is totally irrelevant, but people age differently. But “generations” are often artificial fences put around age groups.

  • I agree though that when Bernie becomes president, guillotining all the boomers should be first order of business. Excepting himself of course.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Hey, I turned 70 this past June. I have to say I still have my mental health faculties and I know a good many other people above 70 still do. Just because Reagan began showing dementia especially during his second term does not mean every 80-year-old needs to be locked up in the G ward.
    I've known people in their 90s or even over 100 who are still mentally sharp. But as one ages (I'm quickly approaching 70 myself), I don't think most people's minds work as quickly, and they usually don't have the energy level needed for the job of POTUS. There are certainly exceptions, but the odds of dealing with the effects of aging increase when we elect someone older than I am. Various physical illnesses and conditions become more likely as well.

    You'll note that whatever age I reach becomes the borderline for "old"! :wink:


Sign In or Register to comment.