Support NeoGAF

[Zolo]

Is Trump experiencing mental decline? Hasn't he always been like this? I don't age can excuse how awful he is.

I mean....not even about this specifically, but even stuff like not getting how trade works with the EU. I don't think he's ever been smart, but I think there was a time he'd have understood enough to get that.

 

[Basileus777]

Is Trump experiencing mental decline? Hasn't he always been like this? I don't age can excuse how awful he is.

I'd say if you listen to him speak from decades past he did sound more cogent than he does today. He was always an awful person, but probably a more mentally sound one.

 

[nature boy]

Is Trump experiencing mental decline? Hasn't he always been like this? I don't age can excuse how awful he is.

If you watch some of his older interviews (from the 80s-90s) you'll notice a clear decrease in how coherent his speech is.

 

[Chichikov]

Man, I love Lindy West.

The Ivanka Trump Guarantee

When Donald Trump was elected president last November, his elder daughter was portrayed as liberal America’s consolation prize, like a Christmas present from an absentee dad plunked on the doormat in February. Uh, this is what you Democrats are into, right? Women? Businesswomen? Your little woman projects? That’s still your thing, right?

Stop wondering which of these people will save us and when. There is not going to be a surprise silver lining to the Trump presidency — not from Ivanka Trump, not from Jared Kushner, not from Rex Tillerson, not from John Kelly. This is it. The Trump Doctrine is to say whatever makes you feel good and do whatever makes you the most money. And Ms. Trump isn’t anomalous; she’s emblematic. Don’t waste your time parsing what they say; spend it fighting what they do.

 

[Mark Andrew]

Clinton makes frank admissions about the places she fell short. She acknowledges it was bad "optics" to deliver paid speeches to Wall Street banks after the financial meltdown last decade. She says her comment during a CNN town hall about putting coal miners out of business was the misstep "I regret the most." And, as she has before, Clinton calls her decision to use a private email server during her time at the State Department as "dumb."

CNN - Defiant Clinton looks to explain loss in new memoir

Some really incredible passages in the full article. This is going to be a fascinating book, even for historical purposes.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

If you watch some of his older interviews (from the 80s-90s) you'll notice a clear decrease in how coherent his speech is.

I'm not actually sure I do. He's never asked technical policy questions in the past - why would he be? All I can find in archives is just fluff pieces. Almost anyone can look coherent in a fluff piece. I'm unconvinced age is the causal factor so much as, well, being totally unprepared for the presidency in every single way is.

I also find the causal ageism implicit in the idea nobody older can be elected quite disturbing. You'd never say 'we shouldn't elect a woman, since they might get pregnant and there's no time for that in the presidency'. Why are you making an equivalent statement on the basis of age? As a general norm, we ought not to be discriminating in that way. My stepfather got laid off at age 63. He's had an incredibly difficult time finding work, despite being very good at what he does, and a large part of it comes down to the fact his industry (software) is full of young people who are willing to casually write-off older people.

There are so many legitimate reasons to attack Trump it is baffling to me that you would choose to do so in a way that undermines an important liberal norm.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Why?

People need to let go of their Sanders hate. He's the Democratic front runner. You're going to need to be in good shape when you're explaining to the Harris-heads why Jane Sanders getting indicted doesn't mean that Bernie was crooked and suggesting it does is just an anti-Semitic smear against the first non-Christian presidential candidate.

Jefferson, but close enough.

 

[FyreWulff]

I also find the causal ageism implicit in the idea nobody older can be elected quite disturbing. You'd never say 'we shouldn't elect a woman, since they might get pregnant and there's no time for that in the presidency'. As a general norm, we ought not to be discriminating on these bases.

There are so many legitimate reasons to attack Trump it is baffling to me that you would choose to do so in a way that undermines an important liberal norm.

Because there's very real conditions that start appearing when you get that old. The body starts falling apart. Your reaction times go down, no matter how healthy you are. Men get hit by it sooner and harder than women, as well.

But this is also why liberals want easy access to self driving cars, barring until then, cheap or free public transportation, because since it gets more dangerous for you to be driving as you get older, self driving cars/easy-free transit means you can continue to be independent while not being a danger to others.

We've now have had two very old Presidents elected, and both got senile or getting there with Reagan and Trump while in office.

 

[Mark Andrew]

🚨🚨🚨

The review shows that, for the first time in U.S. history, wealthy people with interests before the government have a chance for close and confidential access to the president as a result of payments that enrich him personally.

USA Today used a golf handicap-tracking website to find Trump’s golfing partners. To say the least, not good.

 

[Blader]

I've seen the argument used before to gloss over criticism of his ideology and platform. Also, I don't think "party first" decision making is particularly rational behavior to be expected by any politician during a campaign. Politicians form parties much more so than the other way around.

I mean, maybe a hundred years ago, but this is literally untrue today. Presidential candidates are absorbed into political parties and may steer them, to varying degrees of success, in the direction they like, but they're definitely not forming an entire party around them.

And prioritizing party-first decision making on a campaign isn't irrational, it's a huge part of campaigning! There's more than just one person on the ballot.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Because there's very real conditions that start appearing when you get that old. The body starts falling apart. Your reaction times go down, no matter how healthy you are.

Right, good, I'm glad to know that 'reaction time' is a key part of the presidency.

Again, if an employer said 'that woman was more skilled, but I chose the man since she may get pregnant and I'd immediately have to look for someone else', you'd say that was absolutely and completely wrong.

You, as an employer (a member of the electorate of the United States of America), are now saying 'that older person was more skilled, but I chose the younger one since the older one may get dementia and I'd immediately have to look for someone else', and now you're defending this?

These are completely incompatible positions. You cannot justify them!

I'm not in any rush to elect an older candidate. I don't have any specific preference or aversion over age - if anything, I would like it if more younger politicians rang, so that the political class could be more representative. What I do find disturbing is the rush to disqualify older candidates purely on the basis of age itself.

 

[Wilsongt]

Trumpass seems almost giddy at the prospect of another hurricane hitting the US.

 

[FyreWulff]

Right, good, I'm glad to know that 'reaction time' is a key part of the presidency.

Again, if an employer said 'that woman was more skilled, but I chose the man since she may get pregnant and I'd immediately have to look for someone else', you'd say that was absolutely and completely wrong.

You, as an employer (a member of the electorate of the United States of America), are now saying 'that older person was more skilled, but I chose the younger one since the older one may get dementia and I'd immediately have to look for someone else', and now you're defending this?

These are completely incompatible positions. You cannot justify them!

I'm not in any rush to elect an older candidate. I don't have any specific preference or aversion over age - if anything, I would like it if more younger politicians rang, so that the political class could be more representative. What I do find disturbing is the rush to disqualify older candidates purely on the basis of age itself.

Age is universal. We also already have arbitrary age requirements for the presidency already. You have to be 35 minimum to even legally run for President. A top end wasn't thought of back then because medicine as we know it literally did not exist when the Constitution was written. People thought mental conditions were either spirits posessing someone or they needed to have half of their 'evil' blood drained, so

 

[Mark Andrew]

Trumpass seems almost giddy at the prospect of another hurricane hitting the US.

Just saw his “no rest for the weary” tweet. He seems to find it genuinely impressive that FEMA is dealing with the impact of multiple hurricanes during hurricane season.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Age is universal. We also already have arbitrary age requirements for the presidency already. You have to be 35 minimum to even legally run for President. A top end wasn't thought of back then because medicine as we know it literally did not exist when the Constitution was written. People thought mental conditions were either spirits posessing someone or they needed to have half of their 'evil' blood drained, so

Trying to justify it by pointing out there is a minimum age requirement doesn't improve things, since the minimum age requirement also ought to be abolished.

If the President is literally rendered incapable, there are already constitutional allowances for this. 'being old' isn't the same as 'a mental condition'; the fact you're so happy to blur the two is just making your case worse.

 

[kmag]

Trying to justify it by pointing out there is a minimum age requirement doesn't improve things, since the minimum age requirement also ought to be abolished.

If the President is literally rendered incapable, there are already constitutional allowances for this. 'being old' isn't the same as 'a mental condition'; the fact you're so happy to blur the two is just making your case worse.

The notion that signing at 80 year old up for an expected 8 year stint in an extremely demanding high pressure job is somehow not an issue is amusingly naive.

Sanders would have outlive the average 79 year old American male by two years to see out a second term.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The notion that signing at 80 year old up for an expected 8 year stint in an extremely demanding high pressure job is somehow not an issue is amusingly naive.

Sanders would have outlive the average 79 year old American male by two years to see out a second term.

If he were to die in office, there is a clear succession. This is what the role of Vice President is for.

Guillain-Barre syndrome kills 7.5% of people suffering from it within 10 years. It seems at least plausible to me this would have been a higher figure during Roosevelt's time in office, given advances in medicine. Your criteria for selection is ruling out America's greatest ever president.

US life expectancy in 1865 was 41.1 years. You've just ruled out Lincoln. That's two.

In 1790, it was about 36. That's Washington gone!

 

[Toth]

Trumpass seems almost giddy at the prospect of another hurricane hitting the US.

I saw that tweet and was like, "Is he that excited to show his 'team' effort again?"

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Trumpass seems almost giddy at the prospect of another hurricane hitting the US.

10 more storms and his approval will be positive!

 

[Basileus777]

US life expectancy in 1865 was 41.1 years. You've just ruled out Lincoln. That's two.

In 1790, it was about 36. That's Washington gone!

I expect that you know enough about how life expectancy figures are calculated to know that this is misleading.

 

[Blader]

Age should be a part of the calculus because it's something that voters consider too. Age was a concern about McCain. It was a concern about Reagan in '84 before he flipped it on its head.

And to keep beating this drum: if one of the failures of the Obama era Democratic Party was not cultivating a new generation of leaders to come to the fore in the post-Obama years, then choosing a septuagenarian as our next presidential nominee seems like a move that's decidedly in the opposite direction.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I expect that you know enough about how life expectancy figures are calculated to know that this is misleading.

Even life expectancy at 20 doesn't change this significantly - see here. Early America actually had relatively low infant mortality rates since urbanisation was so low and there were less disease vectors - for 1790, moving from expectancy at 0 to expectancy at 20 only increases it by about 5 years (if you did a similar thing for contemporary UK, it's nearer 12).

That's just a piece of historical trivia, though.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Life expectancy calculations should really just skip anyone under the age of 1 or 5 or whatever an infant is, because it skews the stats. I guess "technically" that's the average life span, but people in their 40s in the 1800s were not elderly people on their death beds, lucky to still be alive. If there's a huge amount of deaths <1 year old, and a huge amount of deaths in their 60s and 70s, it's going to move the average stat down, even if most people either die less than 1, or live until their 60s.

It's not as big of a deal these days, at least in the US, but go back a generation, and life expectancy stats are basically useless for finding the age most people actually lived to.

Edit: Turns out there actually is an "If you lived past 5, this is the stat" number.

 

[nature boy]

I'm not actually sure I do. He's never asked technical policy questions in the past - why would he be? All I can find in archives is just fluff pieces. Almost anyone can look coherent in a fluff piece. I'm unconvinced age is the causal factor so much as, well, being totally unprepared for the presidency in every single way is.

I also find the causal ageism implicit in the idea nobody older can be elected quite disturbing. You'd never say 'we shouldn't elect a woman, since they might get pregnant and there's no time for that in the presidency'. Why are you making an equivalent statement on the basis of age? As a general norm, we ought not to be discriminating in that way. My stepfather got laid off at age 63. He's had an incredibly difficult time finding work, despite being very good at what he does, and a large part of it comes down to the fact his industry (software) is full of young people who are willing to casually write-off older people.

There are so many legitimate reasons to attack Trump it is baffling to me that you would choose to do so in a way that undermines an important liberal norm.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/23/donald-trump-speaking-style-interviews/

It's not the nature of the content, but how articulate he was compared to now.

Also to why, age might be a part of it, some neurodegenerative disease, could be his lifestyle, who knows.

I'm not in the "he's too old" camp, I'm in the "he never had the character to be POTUS and age made him worse" camp. Substantial difference.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I think if Sanders does run again he commits to serving just a single term

 

[Blader]

I think if Sanders does run again he commits to serving just a single term

I think that would be a greater handicap than just being old.

 

[nature boy]

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I think if Sanders does run again he commits to serving just a single term

I don't think this has ever actually worked out in a person's favor.

 

[Mark Andrew]

A three month extension is better than default in any case

 

[dramatis]

NPR's Hidden Brain has a sort of interesting podcast this week about how Trump is changing the way people talk.

"It's not so much what's in your head and heart, as it is you looking around and seeing what's acceptable, seeing what's okay, seeing what people will tolerate. And the election changed people's notion of what was tolerable," Crandall says.

Another topic Crandall explores is when and why people turn to free speech arguments to defend racist speech.

"People pull out free speech when they're defending racist speech, but not when they're defending simply aggressive, or negative speech," he says.

 

[nature boy]

Oh look Paul Ryan acting like a dick

Sahil Kapur&#8207;Verified account @sahilkapur 9m9 minutes ago
More
.@SpeakerRyan on ending DACA: "President Trump was right in his decision. He made the right call."

Zeke Miller&#8207;Verified account
@ZekeJMiller

Ryan on DACA: ”I think people should rest easy."

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

Man, Paul Ryan ages like 4 years between every media appearance.

 

[Diablos]

Oh look Paul Ryan acting like a dick

Wtf

 

[dramatis]

In a strange hypothetical, do you guys think we would have been in a better place if Kevin McCarthy had become speaker instead of Paul Ryan?

 

[VendettaRed07]

In a strange hypothetical, do you guys think we would have been in a better place if Kevin McCarthy had become speaker instead of Paul Ryan?

Well Ryan has been really incompetent so, idk. Don't think it would have made any real difference

 

[Dan]

&#128680;&#128680;&#128680;



USA Today used a golf handicap-tracking website to find Trump’s golfing partners. To say the least, not good.

In July, a federal court ordered the government to release visitor records from Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., to a watchdog group. The deadline is Friday.

Interesting...

 

[kirblar]

Is Trump experiencing mental decline? Hasn't he always been like this? I don't age can excuse how awful he is.

Yes. It's blatantly obvious it's dementia - he's always been racist, but him today vs him 20/30 years ago is completely different.

I'm not actually sure I do. He's never asked technical policy questions in the past - why would he be? All I can find in archives is just fluff pieces. Almost anyone can look coherent in a fluff piece. I'm unconvinced age is the causal factor so much as, well, being totally unprepared for the presidency in every single way is.

I also find the causal ageism implicit in the idea nobody older can be elected quite disturbing. You'd never say 'we shouldn't elect a woman, since they might get pregnant and there's no time for that in the presidency'. Why are you making an equivalent statement on the basis of age? As a general norm, we ought not to be discriminating in that way. My stepfather got laid off at age 63. He's had an incredibly difficult time finding work, despite being very good at what he does, and a large part of it comes down to the fact his industry (software) is full of young people who are willing to casually write-off older people.

There are so many legitimate reasons to attack Trump it is baffling to me that you would choose to do so in a way that undermines an important liberal norm.

It is not casual agism to want to protect the country from the inevitable mental decline of senior citizens, just like it's not homophobia to decline blood donations from men who've recently had sex w/ other men.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Man, Paul Ryan ages like 4 years between every media appearance.

What's the average life expectancy of a gremlin?

 

[BoogieWoogie]

Interesting...

I mean the first one listed is a representative of South Korea and we see how much Trump gave a shit about that.

It doesn't matter that these people pay their way to see Trump, for better or for worse. He's going to do whatever the fuck he wants and take their money anyway.

 

[nature boy]

Charlie Spiering&#8207;Verified account @charliespiering 3m3 minutes ago
More
Trump on Hurricane Irma: “It looks like it could be something that will be not good. Believe me, not good."

.

 

[B-Dubs]

.

I swear to god, he talks with the vocabulary of a three-year-old.

 

[Blader]

Just read a short politico piece about Trump cancelling a couple re-election fundraisers he was going to host in Texas soon, and I realized, isn't it pretty fucking weird how we've so quickly normalized that Trump is already running for re-election? Like, every incumbent president for the last 50 years has, but the fact that he's so open and brazen about it so soon into his term and yet seems to get no kind of blowback for it is kind of strange to me.

In a strange hypothetical, do you guys think we would have been in a better place if Kevin McCarthy had become speaker instead of Paul Ryan?

Hard to say. McCarthy is stupider than Ryan but is also personally tighter than Trump, which can only help House Republican unity and hurt everyone else.

 

[BoogieWoogie]

"The faces of McConnell, Schumer, and Pelosi in this photo capture the negotiating leverage each party has right now."

 

[Box of Kittens]

It looks like it could be something that will be ungood. Believe me, doubleplus ungood.

 

[Baron von Loathsome]

"I think people should rest easy."

You do realize Dreamers are people, right?

 

[gaugebozo]

I swear to god, he talks with the vocabulary of a three-year-old.

My three-year-old knows way more words then that. Although if we're talking about speechmaking (not policy), I prefer my one-year-old.

 

[Teggy]

Polk County Sheriff @PolkCoSheriff
If you go to a shelter for #Irma and you have a warrant, we'll gladly escort you to the safe and secure shelter called the Polk County Jail

Someone wants Senpai to notice him.

 

[tbm24]

"I think people should rest easy."

You do realize Dreamers are people, right?

Non American people, so he's not talking about them.

 

[sc0la]

Interesting...

Dolan walks into building labeled
*Mar-A-Lago Guest List*
*Walks out*
"Everything was Putin."

 

[Aaron Strife]

Ugh, someone help me. I had a dream where I was checking approval ratings on Gallup. It's bad enough I obsess over this stuff when I'm awake.