921–930 of 1001 posts
In his final 6 months, set up a plan for a Constitutional amendment that puts an upper age limit of 75 at the start of a term of office for Members of Congress, Senators, POTUS, VPOTUS, Executive appointments requiring Senate consent, Judges, with compulsory retirement at 75 for lifetime appointments.
In his final 6 months, set up a plan for a Constitutional amendment that puts an upper age limit of 75 at the start of a term of office for Members of Congress, Senators, POTUS, VPOTUS, Executive appointments requiring Senate consent, Judges, with compulsory retirement at 75 for lifetime appointments.
My god. I really didn‘t think he would actually do it.
There was never any risk of me voting for Trump, but when I watched the debate it became abundantly clear that Biden could not win an election. He came off as an extremely frail old man and I had my doubts that he would survive the entire debate , let alone another four years in office. I'm a pretty left-leaning person and I find Trump to be an overwhelmingly unappealing idiot in general, but even I had to admit that…
My god. I really didn‘t think he would actually do it.
Meh, it was a downward spiral after the debate. No way he was going to last long. Even Manifold politics had him at 20% two weeks ago. And 10% for the past week.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would not think they were very aware this was a possibility? Because it is a shock to you, you assume it would be a shock to them? Do you really think they read the news to find the news? Or do you think there are layers and levels that you are not privy to?
Because Trump is an idiot but his movement of grifters is not. If Trump was smart he’d have picked a candidate of color. Instead he went with a mediocre Peter Thiel VC plant who wants to make America like the Handmaid’s tale. I think they were banking on Biden staying in and being stubborn. Do you really think Biden would leave his son’s incarceration up to chance? That he voluntarily left the run for POTUS is huge a…
Sounds racist. How about he pick the person best suited for the role?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> That is just calling yourself a liar Yeah, because politics is where truth famously reigns supreme.
You are what you are when no one is looking. If you would have ever voted for Biden, you don’t get to complain about Trump’s age.
In his final 6 months, set up a plan for a Constitutional amendment that puts an upper age limit of 75 at the start of a term of office for Members of Congress, Senators, POTUS, VPOTUS, Executive appointments requiring Senate consent, Judges, with compulsory retirement at 75 for lifetime appointments.
Biden could use his time to promote one, but there is absolutely no way it can be done in six months. A Constitutional amendment is an enormous hurdle to overcome -- three-quarters of the state legislatures.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think most democrats actually care who the president is as long as it isn't Trump. That's why they voted for Biden in the first place. It is kind of ironic though that the party of "saving democracy" will not put the winner of the primaries as their candidate but I think practically speaking there is already somewhat of a consensus among the party for doing this. Also see polling that shows Harris with equal…
I believe you, and the more I read the more I am seeing this same sentiment. It’s just wild to me.
There is a degree to which this move is "less democratic", but we have to be careful. It is less democratic in the governance of the Democratic Party, but it's worth noting that the Democratic Party is not a polity. Running someone who can win instead of who the party chose might be a more democratic outcome with respect to the organization that matters more.
There's absolutely room for this to be taken too far. With mostly just the two parties, elites could (and arguably did, pre-'68) use these kinds of concerns as cover for excluding certain perspectives from power. That's something to watch for, but given the context it is obviously not what is happening here when the person being excluded is the current President, with the support of the party elites up to this point.
Not going to happen, but I wonder how a mixed party ticket would do. Kamala (or whoever) + Mitt Romney as VP ? Has it ever been done? Would it work to attract the center/swing vote, or more likely to be a negative?
Romney is politically obsolete. He serves no further purpose in American politics.
i understand the significance of this news for majority of the users here, but unsure if it fits the guidelines of what should be discussed here. > If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
I think there are exceptions allowed for major events (if only the keep all of the discussion in one place, preventing it from bleeding into the rest of the site).