Martell Spy Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Quote What if the vice president is ancient as well and they both die soon after taking office? Well, they are unlikely to both die at once. But if that happens I think some lower level cabinet Secretary played by Kiefer Sutherland takes over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 59 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: Well, they are unlikely to both die at once. But if that happens I think some lower level cabinet Secretary played by Kiefer Sutherland takes over. "I said, TAKE YOUR SEATS!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Okay, but forgive me if I'm just a smidgen gunshy that democrats are talking about not supporting anyone over 70 literally 3 years before the election that likely had Trump win for precisely that reason For precisely that reason? I think Trump's age was a nonfactor in 2016. Part of the reason it was a nonfactor was because he and Clinton were both approximately the same age. Are you arguing that if Trump had been 10 years younger he would have lost the race? If Trump is on the debate stage with a man/woman 15-20 years his junior, I think it will make his word salad nonsense look that much worse. I also think that President is an incredibly demanding job, and picking someone younger than 70 seems prudent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, Kalbear said: It isn't that weird of a stretch for a government to want to use Ancestry.com or 23andMe to find out, say, who is Jewish or Arabic or Persian. And that information is technically not owned by me, either. Yeah, this is why my wife and I haven't gone for these tests. We're curious about genetic testing, partially because my mother in law is adopted and we don't know about her ancestry besides "maybe French Canadian" -- but the lack of ownership of your own genetic info is worrying. Not just the idea that a supremacist government would look for undesirables, but would insurance companies be able to look for people with a predisposition to cancer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Just now, Maithanet said: For precisely that reason? I think Trump's age was a nonfactor in 2016. Part of the reason it was a nonfactor was because he and Clinton were both approximately the same age. Are you arguing that if Trump had been 10 years younger he would have lost the race? For the reason that Democrats were all "I don't know, Clinton is not perfect, so I think I'll stay home". Just like they did with Gore. Because Democrats have to really love someone to come out, apparently. Just now, Maithanet said: If Trump is on the debate stage with a man/woman 15-20 years his junior, I think it will make his word salad nonsense look that much worse. I also think that President is an incredibly demanding job, and picking someone younger than 70 seems prudent. I think a younger POTUS is a good idea in general (both Bill Clinton and Obama brought energy to the office). I don't think that making Trump look nonsensical matters in the least. My gut suspicion is that you need to get someone who is serious, who is mature, and who can make good arguments based on policy and is no-drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: Yeah, this is why my wife and I haven't gone for these tests. We're curious about genetic testing, partially because my mother in law is adopted and we don't know about her ancestry besides "maybe French Canadian" -- but the lack of ownership of your own genetic info is worrying. Not just the idea that a supremacist government would look for undesirables, but would insurance companies be able to look for people with a predisposition to cancer? I think that you have to simply block the predisposition stuff at the legal level, regardless. There are going to be so many ways to block people based on information - genetic, social media, fitbit stats - that you should simply take the base argument that affordable healthcare is a right for all, period, and bake that into law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 21, 2017 Author Share Posted August 21, 2017 42 minutes ago, Kalbear said: NOOOOOO NOOOOOOOOO SUPPORT ANYONE WHO CAN AND WILL BEAT TRUMP I DON"T CARE IF THEY'RE 95 AND HAVE A COLOSTOMY BAG VOTE FOR THE COLOSTOMY BAG I'M AN OCTOGENARIAN! WITH A SHITSACK BY MY SIDE! AND I"M RUNNING *RUNNING* FOR POTUS NEXT TIME! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 11 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: Yeah, this is why my wife and I haven't gone for these tests. We're curious about genetic testing, partially because my mother in law is adopted and we don't know about her ancestry besides "maybe French Canadian" -- but the lack of ownership of your own genetic info is worrying. Not just the idea that a supremacist government would look for undesirables, but would insurance companies be able to look for people with a predisposition to cancer? Coincidentally this link was also posted on my Facebook today: http://www.businessinsider.com/white-nationalists-genetic-ancestry-tests-dont-like-results-2017-8 The idea of either white supremacists or insurance companies using this data to discriminate is worrisome. However, I think their accuracy is also overblown. I am planning to take the Helix test (the one promoted by National Geographic) next month because the biology professor at my university says the way it presents results are the most scientific. The exact percentage pie charts you see advertised on TV all the time are questionable. I just found out last night that my sister had this done several years ago. Her results came out 14% "East Asian" -- which, given that we are 100% descended from people who were living in what's now the USA in 1776, seems rather unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: I think a younger POTUS is a good idea in general (both Bill Clinton and Obama brought energy to the office). I don't think that making Trump look nonsensical matters in the least. My gut suspicion is that you need to get someone who is serious, who is mature, and who can make good arguments based on policy and is no-drama. ...You are scared of Andrew Cuomo getting the nomination, huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAROVORKIN Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 17 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said: At the end of the day, if there are still elections in 2020, I'm going to vote for the colostomy bag. I'd just prefer the Dem candidate to not be a colostomy bag. I want someone who will be capable of leading the Democratic party to success for the sake of all of us. I just have a hard time imagining that person will be a colostomy bag. What about Joe Kennedy the III ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Just now, Ormond said: However, I think their accuracy is also overblown. I am planning to take the Helix test (the one promoted by National Geographic) next month because the biology professor at my university says the way it presents results are the most scientific. The exact percentage pie charts you see advertised on TV all the time are questionable. I think that the accuracy of some parts is really overblown, but for certain populations (especially, say, Ashkenazi Jews), the genetic markers are well-studied and apparent enough that it's not that hard to figure it out. What was really cool in my case is that it linked me up with someone else who took the test and turned out to be a long-lost cousin, who confirmed that entire side of my family was Jewish and had fled Lithuania during the Pogroms in the turn of the century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IamMe90 Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 7 minutes ago, Kalbear said: I think a younger POTUS is a good idea in general (both Bill Clinton and Obama brought energy to the office). I don't think that making Trump look nonsensical matters in the least. My gut suspicion is that you need to get someone who is serious, who is mature, and who can make good arguments based on policy and is no-drama. Interesting. The impression I've always had, which I feel was very much solidified by the 2016 elections, is that being able to effectively and maturely debate policy has almost zero bearing on electability. People are way too damn prone to whim and taking feelings into account when voting. That's why I'm somewhat worried about the viability of this apparent new wave of celebrity/public figure candidates cropping up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Just now, IamMe90 said: Interesting. The impression I've always had, which I feel was very much solidified by the 2016 elections, is that being able to effectively and maturely debate policy has almost zero bearing on electability. People are way too damn prone to whim and taking feelings into account when voting. I agree. What I think people will want in 2020 is someone who has gravitas and takes the oath seriously, and is talkikng about policy and the like. It isn't about them being able to articulate the policy - it's about someone who shows they care about it. A charismatic, serious person would be really good as a counterweight to Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanteGabriel Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, Red Tiger said: ...You are scared of Andrew Cuomo getting the nomination, huh? There needs to be an emoji for "I imploded because I projectile vomited and shat myself at the same time." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAROVORKIN Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Just now, DanteGabriel said: There needs to be an emoji for "I imploded because I projectile vomited and shat myself at the same time." Who do want to lead the Democrats? Ill attempt to be more thoughtful about my comments . Will that suffice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Tiger Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 59 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said: There needs to be an emoji for "I imploded because I projectile vomited and shat myself at the same time." Im sure the South Park guys have something for that. But seriously for a moment. I wouldn't be surprised if Cuomo campaigned for the nod. Im hoping for Kamala Harris or Joe Kennedy III, but Cuomo should not be overlooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Honestly, I think I'd like Bloomberg to go Democrat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 And going back to the violence inherent in the system, this person makes a very good argument about why not to use violence - or at least certain *kinds* of violence. Namely, the 'many sides' argument is precisely what was used in the past, and anything that looks like disorderly brawling favors authoritarians and people's instincts to support whatever group supports lawful behavior. To me, this signals that violence is perfectly acceptable - as a tool, when shown to be very organized and capable, professional, and defensive. Note that the militias down there didn't get a lot of flak from either side. Perhaps that is more of what is needed. https://twitter.com/zeynep/status/899262738240851969 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAROVORKIN Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 11 minutes ago, Kalbear said: Honestly, I think I'd like Bloomberg to go Democrat. He did initially contemplate running against Trump in 2016 and then he abruptly decided not to. What are the odds that he will test the waters in 2020? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted August 21, 2017 Share Posted August 21, 2017 Just now, GAROVORKIN said: He did initially contemplate running against Trump in 2016 and then he abruptly decided not to. What are the odds that he will test the waters in 2020? He chose not to run against Trump because his data showed that this would likely cause Trump to win, if he went independent. If he went Democrat, however, that's another story entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.