7mo ago

Top Trump donor 'stunned' after he lashed out at her in a series of 'angry texts'

www.rawstory.com Top Trump donor 'stunned' after he lashed out at her in a series of 'angry texts': NYT

According to a report from the New York Times, Donald Trump has put his relationship with one of his top campaign donors on shaky ground after he deluged her with a series of "angry texts" as his campaign was partially derailed by Vice President Kamala Harris becoming his new presidential opponent.A...

You're viewing a single thread.

93 comments

This guy is just too old. He's lost it. Just a weird racist rapist with 34 felonies. He should be seeking treatment, not an election. It's embarrassing.
- I'm not a racist or a rapist or a racist rapist...
- I resent the idea of judging people by their age, whether Biden or Trump. You can reach 80 and be fine. The problems with Biden and Trump are not their age but their attitude and cognitive abilities (which correlates with age but you know what they say about correlation).
  I agree with everything else.
  Let's stop this fucked up ageism. It is not his age. It's his 34 (or however many) felonies.
  
  But there's a certain point where your age does matter when you're trying to do what is said to be the most stressful job on the planet.
  The stress from the job is just going to make them have those cognitive decline faster at the age that they're at.
  So age does matter. Where it should not be the only marker, it should be included in the decision.
  Also, there's already a limit on how old you have to be to run for president. There should be a top end as well for the same reasons you are no longer reflecting the majority of your peers at that point.
  And when you consider most 80 year olds don't understand technology at all, and I haven't met any 80 year olds that were up to date, it is a big factor.
  
  I never said age doesn't matter. All I said is that some effects that come with aging are problematic and since all people age differently, they should be judged on their own basis. We have tests for cognitive decline... no need to use stupid methods like picking an age and drawing a line.
  
  Tests for cognitive decline aren't worth shit if we don't actually 1) use them, 2) believe their results, 3) implement legal procedures to remove a president whose cognition has deteriorated, and 4) actually use (read: enforce!) those legal procedures.
  But wait, there's more! Cognition is complex and cognitive decline is gradual. I'm not sure that the existing tests (e.g., the NPI-C, IQCODE) are sensitive enough to measure the very onset of decline, which is what I'd want for a president. It's safer to set the maximum age for presidency below the median age at onset of cognitive decline, which is roughly 70 per Hale et al (see doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2020.100577).
  
  Onset of decline sounds good but how were these studies able to tell where it starts if they were not adequate at testing it (because your claim is we cannot test it so easily so we should rely on the mean age provided by studies that test it... sounds like going in a circle to me)?
  So why not have cognitive tests and a committee of experts. It's the President we are talking about. Surely science can whip something up other than "70 BBAAAAAD, 50 OKAAAY". You could be 35 with mental illnesses that affect your job. You could be 50 and a heavy drinker. Why stop at the age limit if we can disqualify unqualified candidates elsehow? Why use the "safer" dumbass cutoff limit when we can use the "more fair" approach of testing people individually? Why not use the cutoff limit to say "during these years, we test the President even more on cognition"?
  But yeah I agree, nothing works if people won't implement it. And whose fault is that?
  
  Then how do you feel on the minimum age?
  
  I replied to someone else about the same thing. Remove it and replace it with cognitive tests.
  
  Nah if you've watched a relative age you can watch the decline happen.
  Sure some people over 70 are still quite sharp but they are definitely the exception.
  I would argue even 60 is too old. Fortunately I'm in Canada and our leaders are pretty young all around.
  
  I can't see how one can set any kind of hard line when it's clear that exceptions are plently. We have better healthcare and will love longer. Better get used to this.
  
  Do you mind if I ask what your thoughts are about the minimum age to become president? I'm not trying to be combative. I'm just curious what you think (personally I think 35 is really high to be a minimum)
  
  I think those should also be removed. I think being a suitable candidate for presidency means being cognitively fit and have good campaigning and debates. At this 70 or 80 cutoff we lose people like Bernie and I'm sure we are losing out on a lot of potentially good candidates younger than 35.
  
  Oh it's age. At 80 you can literally die at any second. That's now what you want or need in a leader. Nobody at 80 has the wit and reflexes the did 20 years ago. 70 is pushing it.
  
  You can literally die at any second no matter what your age. That doesn't seem like a well-considered criterion.
  
  Ok, you are far more likely to die at any second at the age of 80. Is that better?
  
  I'm no scientist but I'm going to go ahead and say with confidence that when you 80, your chances of not waking up are exponentially higher than someone younger.
  
  I think it's those 34 felonies that don't matter tho. We allow felons to run for a very good reason and it's pretty big insurance that a wannabe dictator can't just achieve full takeover by having all his opponents convicted of crimes.
  Age on the other hand... Even the healthiest 80yo can go on a sudden decline.

93 comments