I'd be interested to see if this strategy works the other way around
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
1270 points (98.7% liked)
politics
19238 readers
2227 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
He's always been too old to run. It's completely ridiculous that he would go after his opponent for something that he is as well without a hint of irony.
He could shame others for having a pot on their head while he has multiple pots on his head and his voters wouldn't be able to see the farce.
It was always just about image. Trump has a bunch of other bad things to talk about and he doesn't show age as a problem as clearly as Biden does. Not to say there haven't been moments where Trump has had moments like Biden but the focus has always been on the other bad aspects of Trump. The reason they focus on it with Biden is because he doesn't really have much else interesting going on for the media to focus on instead.
One big concern is he has golfers spine. That's why it looks like he's wearing a diaper full of shit when standing. It's a serious concern as he may even need spinal surgery as bad as it looks. Has he even been checked by a spinal professional?
What's the point... Trump has no spine.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Basically, my adhd brethren: Biden boring, but old and shows it. Trump not boring, just dumb, and shows age less often.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Could we do a boot instead?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Again, for the record, Peter Cooper is the record holder for oldest Nominee. Trump is second and Biden is third(albeit Biden is still older by the Reagan metric of end of office if Trump ends up losing or dies midway through). If you wanna say oldest REPUBLICAN ever go for it, that's a far safer claim that's not made incorrect thanks to Peter Cooper or vulnerable to debating the exact definition like Biden is(like he was A Nominee in the primaries, he just didn't become THE Nominee). Also making this argument makes the 'Biden should resign' thing worse so, maybe hold off on that. There's plenty of legitimate anti-Trump arguments that can be expressed as simple factual statements. Trump is rapist. No need to get into the age shit
The reason for the push on age, I feel, is that the trump campaign has gotten his followers chanting the issue for a month. The talking heads got the sheep saying it, and if the sheep hear the same problem with trump there is already a mental framework that was heavily pushed by their trusted sources. The back peddling and justifications can cause voter apathy. That’s the goal for both parties this time, as if you back trump you can’t think your way out of it and if you don’t you can’t think your way in. I feel the theme of the 2024 election is “your guy sucks, you should stay home.”
load more comments
(3 replies)
How about Trump is the oldest nominee of any major political party? Would that be accurate?
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Finally! The dems are going low!
He totally is too old, though. Bill Clinton is younger than him.
Weird fact: Clinton, Bush Jr. and Trump were all born in 1946. For some reason there's a clustering of president birth years. 1913 and 1924 were also popular.
Hmm, what could be the connection? It's almost as if there was a "boom" of babies born 9 months after WW2 ended.
The peak year for the baby boom was 1947, not 1946. In 1947 there were 26.6 births per 1000 population, in 1946 it was 24.1. But, even though the baby boom was a noticeable change in birth rate, it wasn't actually all that dramatic. In the depths of WWII in 1943 the birth rate was 22.7. In 1965 when the baby boom was over, it had only dropped to 19.4.
https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/NCHS-Births-and-General-Fertility-Rates-United-Sta/e6fc-ccez/data_preview
There's no reason that there should be a cluster of presidents born in 1946 rather than a few spread around the post-war years.
load more comments
(4 replies)