NSFW THE TRUMPOCALYPSE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Capstan said:
Your objection to his years is based on what? Your youth? Or your bigotry? Some hate men. Others hate gays. Some hate Muslims. Some hate immigrants. Others hate the mature. It's all bigotry. It's all based on hatred and fear. There is no reason for any of it. If he's elected, he'll just be setting a new record.
Click to expand...

Do, I really need to spell it out? Sanders will be 80 months after potentially being elected President in 2020, and if he serves the typical 8 years, will be almost 90. At that age not many people are doing red-eye jet setting, and facing constant stressful decisions. People in their 80s are at risk of losing energy and vitality, and mental acuity, and health issues are a distraction to their job. People at that age are usually retired and need to rest. Not all, but the point is that it's a risk. Frankly speaking, there is a risk of a President having very poor health and it being unclear if they should be replaced or not or who is making the decisions. From the point of the democratic party, it's obvious that if they chose Sanders they give his opponent easy ammunition, rightly or wrongly. He may not want the job at that age, either.

These are valid practical questions. I'd also question a 20 or 25 year old running for President based on lack of experience, and no-one would support a child running for President, so it's obvious some age-based restrictions apply. Age is a little different to race and sexuality which are fundamental characteristics.

It's reasonable to disagree with this but suggesting this is bigotry and equating it with hating gays is a bit over the top and unecessarily argumentative.

Would you support Sanders for President in 2020 if he was 90 today? 100? 110? Any age whatsover?
 
Trump lawyers spill beans, thanks to terrible choice of restaurant — next door to the New York Times

DJ-aftSXoAA4lZS.jpg:small
 
Jamie in Chile said:
These are valid practical questions.
Click to expand...

No, they're opinions based on lack of knowledge, stereotyping and arrogance. It's also illegal in the USA to deny employment based on age discrimination. You're actually promoting an illegal activity, which is against forum rules. You and Trump are two of a kind- you both dismiss the value of people, for what you perceive as practicality. Reasonable? Buy yourself a dictionary and look up the word. Using the age card is no different from any other form of bigotry.
 
Hmm, Bernie Sanders surely does not look frail, elderly or low-energetic to me, even when I do compare him to a fitness buff in the middle of his golden years like, well, Dump :D
 
Capstan said:
No, they're opinions based on lack of knowledge, stereotyping and arrogance. It's also illegal in the USA to deny employment based on age discrimination. You're actually promoting an illegal activity, which is against forum rules. You and Trump are two of a kind- you both dismiss the value of people, for what you perceive as practicality. Reasonable? Buy yourself a dictionary and look up the word. Using the age card is no different from any other form of bigotry.
Click to expand...
Mischief was right to call you condescending. Learn to debate in a civil, polite manner or don't bother engaging me at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Katrina
It's illegal to deny employment based on age, yes, which is important for most jobs. But employers do have to take into consideration the requirements of the job when hiring. You're not going to hire an 80 year old with arthritis, hearing and vision problems to park cars or work construction. The same thing with POTUS. Voters should take age and medical conditions into consideration when choosing their president. One of the big concerns in 2008 was that John McCain was older and potentially in ill health and should something happen to him, the nitwit Sarah Palin would take over. I believe that, regardless of Bernie Sanders' politics, his age and potential medical conditions should be factored into his political future.
 
Jamie in Chile said:
Mischief was right to call you condescending. Learn to debate in a civil, polite manner or don't bother engaging me at all.
Click to expand...

So, using ageism is your idea of civil debate? If you have legitimate concerns about a candidate's mental or medical competency, please enumerate them, with some evidence. But to flip someone off as "too old" with a wave of your hand is about as valid as denying climate change. Also, your holier-than-thou, "how dare you" attitude is pretty crummy debate. You're on a public forum. If your half-baked ideas that don't hold water fall apart, maybe you should reconsider presenting them. You don't have a case.
 
Amy SF said:
It's illegal to deny employment based on age, yes, which is important for most jobs. But employers do have to take into consideration the requirements of the job when hiring. You're not going to hire an 80 year old with arthritis, hearing and vision problems to park cars or work construction. The same thing with POTUS. Voters should take age and medical conditions into consideration when choosing their president. One of the big concerns in 2008 was that John McCain was older and potentially in ill health and should something happen to him, the nitwit Sarah Palin would take over. I believe that, regardless of Bernie Sanders' politics, his age and potential medical conditions should be factored into his political future.
Click to expand...

And yet, 10-years later, McCain is still politically active and even saved the ACA with his recent vote. In the transportation industry, physical competency is assessed every two-years through a mandatory medical examination. It's perfectly legal- and rightly so- for a 110-year old person to drive an 18-wheeler, if they have the stuff to do so..Franklin Roosevelt couldn't walk, yet served through four terms as president, and was one of our best. The 22nd Amendment, which limits the terms of a president, was aimed squarely at FDR, but not because of his age or his polio. (That's an amendment that should be repealed.) Perhaps we should have a swimsuit competition to determine who'll be president?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
:rofl: I just saw the trailer for this VR game on Steam.... :rofl: Enjoy! :up: (still giggling, wiping tears)


ss_5b722f844bcb5d051d5963f17df9e586a61315ba.600x338.jpg
 
Last edited:
Capstan said:
So, you cast aspersions on what you term "Bernie liberals" and believe you give no offense in doing so. You're very rude. It appears you can dish it out, but can't take it in return. You really don't know who your friends are.

To answer your question, yes, I can be more condescending, if you can. Wanna play?
Click to expand...

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. RL intruded.

I didn't "cast aspersions" on Bernie liberals; I said that I was afraid they would either push the Democrats so far left that the Democrats would lose much of their normal constituency, or, if they weren't successful in moving the Democrats to the left, they would peel off voters, and, in either case, cost the Democrats the 2020 election.

If that's "casting aspersions" according to your definition, then so be it.

As a matter of fact, I do know who my friends are. Since you don't know either my friends or me, it's odd for you to even try that comment.

As for your last paragraph, while I enjoy a good debate, I've never found pissing matches to be entertaining.
 
Last edited:
Capstan said:
No, they're opinions based on lack of knowledge, stereotyping and arrogance. It's also illegal in the USA to deny employment based on age discrimination. You're actually promoting an illegal activity, which is against forum rules. You and Trump are two of a kind- you both dismiss the value of people, for what you perceive as practicality. Reasonable? Buy yourself a dictionary and look up the word. Using the age card is no different from any other form of bigotry.
Click to expand...

And yet there are mandatory retirement ages for so many jobs....

Also, really, you believe that voting for a political candidate based on age is illegal?! And you're using that to try to threaten Jamie? Unreal.
 
Last edited:
Mischief said:
Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. RL intruded.

I didn't "cast aspersions" on Bernie liberals; I said that I was afraid they would either push the Democrats so far left that the Democrats would lose much of their normal constituency, or, if they weren't successful in moving the Democrats to the left, they would peel off voters, and, in either case, cost the Democrats the 2020 election.

If that's "casting aspersions" according to your definition, then so be it.

As a matter of fact, I do know who my friends are. Since you don't know either my friends or me, it's odd for you to even try that comment.

As for your last paragraph, while I enjoy a good debate, I've never found pissing matches to be entertaining.
Click to expand...

If you recall, I agreed with your original assertion. But then you changed the subject, by claiming a liberal platform to be distasteful. You altered the conversation. You then began playing at semantics, tried putting words in my mouth, and took a personal shot at me, over my ethnicicity.

I say again, as long as the Democratic Party focuses on winning elections, instead of passing legislation supported by their voter base, they're likely to lose. If they don't want the friendship of their voters, they're not likely to get it.
 
I pointing out that you're a cis white male and therefore have little to nothing to lose under a trump presidency, is taking "a personal shot" at you, then so be it. I'm a cis white female no longer of reproductive age, and so I also have little to nothing to lose personally under the trump presidency (barring a nuclear war, which is becoming a greater possibility by the day).

However, I am highly aware that many millions are not in your and my fortunate position, and therefore I am not ready to shrug off what is happening to them that would not have happened under a Clinton presidency.

It ******* matters to many millions of lives , whether dt or HRC is sitting in the White House, and to think it doesn't is a terribly privileged perspective.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amy SF
Mischief said:
I pointing out that you're a cis white male and therefore have little to nothing to lose under a trump presidency, is taking "a personal shot" at you, then so be it. I'm a cis white female no longer of reproductive age, and so I also have little to nothing to lose personally under the trump presidency (barring a nuclear war, which is becoming a greater possibility by the day).

However, I am highly aware that many millions are not in your and my fortunate position, and therefore I am not ready to shrug off what is happening to them that would not have happened under a Clinton presidency.

It ****ing matters to many millions of lives , whether dt or HRC is sitting in the White House, and to think it doesn't is a terribly privileged perspective.
Click to expand...

You keep changing the subject. I'm talking about the future of the Democratic Party, not its past, which is how this discussion began. If the Democrats want to win in future, they need to alter their strategy, by not supporting the right-wing status quo, which is what they did. Hillary lost, based on her own actions, and to try to blame anybody else is folly.
 
Capstan, I agree with you theoretically, but you have to understand that some things are beyond individual control. I effin' hate the Democratic Party, but I still voted for Clinton and I'd do it again.

You're also making a lot of arguments that don't make much sense. Ageism is very real and very harmful, but I don't think your level of defensiveness - to the point of threatening legal action - is appropriate. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that age is a disease everyone catches and it absolutely can interfere with functioning, even for the best people. I don't think you'd find many objectors to that assertion on here, a forum where (although I don't know the exact statistics) many active participants are middle aged or older. Age brings with it a lot of challenges, and wondering whether or not advanced age might interfere with someone's ability to do a job requiring a lot of hard cognitive work is pretty reasonable. Maybe a little insulting, or harsh, but reasonable.

What Mischief said about you being a cis white guy is another example of harsh-but-reasonable. I'm gay but I'm white and (pretty much) a guy, and the complexities of race as it plays into politics escape me on a regular basis. I have to constantly check myself. To be fair it's worth noting that your argument is shared by a lot of folks in racial and sexual minorities, who hate HRC with such a passion that they'd rather act totally aloof and ignore politics altogether than have to support someone who sucks but is a better alternative to an even worse monster.

I get it, I really do. Clinton is not someone I support or who I would have chosen to run. The Democratic Party is so far up its own *** that it's unlikely we'll see any solid progressive action from them even after this dumpster fire of an administration is over. I wanted Bernie, imperfect as he is, or at least someone better than Clinton, who IMO is pretty much a garden variety shady politician. I get it. But this is more complicated than "they're both bad."
 
FortyTwo, I'm not stumping for any candidate in particular. It's too early for that. What I'm saying is, liberal politics in America doesn't have representation, in either party. If the Democrats want to win, they should shift their policies much farther left. If they did, they would find they have fantastic support. You may believe this isn't possible, but I disagree.

I also disagree with your stance on ageism. People, at all times, should be judged on their merits as individuals, not lumped into a big basketful of others, where everyone is a carbon-copy of the next. This is the basis of bigotry, the antithesis of reason. I see no evidence- and have seen none presented- that Sanders is over the hill or likely to be so any time soon. He shoots a pretty mean basketball. His hair may be white, but I expect Hillary and the Donald have white hair too, only they cover it over with fake color. Trump defecates his pants. Hillary has difficulty standing upright on her own and appears to be subject to neurological tremors, when under stress. Some die of old age at 65; others live to 110. Where do you draw the line? At what age do you say everyone becomes incompetent, and on what do you base this number? Really.
 
FortyTwo said:
Age brings with it a lot of challenges, and wondering whether or not advanced age might interfere with someone's ability to do a job requiring a lot of hard cognitive work is pretty reasonable.
Click to expand...

Well, as the American voters (ok, a minority of them, but still) have elected Dump, the part of checking whether the candidate was fit for "hard cognitive work" is probably overrated :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom