• phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    How about shut up about this until elections are over? Yes, you’re all right about this, Biden is an old fart that should not be president. President should not be older than 65, period.

    But there is Trump, and that, well, trumps all. Trump CANNOT become president afian, period

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      You cannot will away reality. No amount of willful ignorance will make undecided people vote for Biden.

      • phoenixz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        And so they’ll vote for a guy who said multiple times he’ll turn the US into a dictatorship? The guy who has project 2025 for his policies to make it a theocratic dictatorship?

        Yeah Biden is demented and senile but at this point I’d prefer a soft boiled egg over trump.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Sure, that’s not the point though. If someone is opposed to voting for Biden because of his age then ignoring the problem will not make them magically more inclined to vote for Biden.

          If we’re fighting for our future then we should have the best candidate, not the default option.

        • Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Why would the quality of his opponent make me vote for a corpse? Biden isnt going to be cognizant enough to serve his term, if hes even alive. And certainly no president at all is worse than trump

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      So you’re okay with attempting to elect a demented old man? When democracy is on the line? That’s crazy.

      He could be replaced. If only we were allowed to have that conversation……………………………………………………

      How about YOU shut up and let us have the conversation. Your way gets Trump elected. We are trying to save America here.

      • papertowels@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Whataboutism only applies as a logical fallacy when used to avoid defense of the original accusation.

        There is no avoidance here, they fully agree that Biden is old etc. etc.

        Whataboutism does not apply.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          No he’s right. Shouting about Trump as a deflection from valid criticism of Biden is a classic whataboutism.

          • papertowels@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Comparing two candidates for a position is not a logical fallacy.

            Using whataboutism to deflect from the criticisms of one is.

            Again, criticism was acknowledged.

              • papertowels@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                Can you go into detail? What’s the criticism that you think is being deflected?

                EDIT: nah, I’m just going to stick with my initial assertion. Comparing two candidates for a position is not a logical fallacy. Do you agree?

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  If that was the conversation then yes. But when the conversation is about party A fucking up then bringing party B into it is whataboutism. It’s the literal definition of a whataboutism.

          • Bytemeister@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            Ελληνικά
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            No. It’s a complete misunderstanding of whataboutism.

            Whataboutism is when you point to another similar situation and say “what about that”.

            Examples…

            A non-whataboutism - Biden is old, but we absolutely cannot have trump, a self proclaimed wannabe dictator, become president.

            A whataboutism - Biden is old. Yeah, but trump is old too!

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              There is nowhere that defines whataboutism with that restriction. You guys are so deep in the sand you’re pulling out literal propaganda techniques to manufacture consent.

                • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  The wiki article does not support what you’re saying. It even suggests 2 other methods, accusations of double standards, and hypocrisy. The main point is to distract from the actual conversation by using an accusation.

                  Actually try reading your sources.

    • enbyecho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      President should not be older than 65, period.

      Why 65 specifically? Why not 64 or 66?

        • enbyecho@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          65 is supposed to be the age of retiremenr for a normal career

          “Supposed to”

          In Washington DC it’s 67. In Virginia it’s 61. In 1991 it was 57. It’s based on arbitrary convention, not for any medical reason.

            • enbyecho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              Well, that should be standardized then, and 65 seems like a nice median

              Based on what?

              I’ve known high energy 80 year olds who were sharp as a tack and 50 year olds with early onset dementia or who were just plain nuts to begin with.

              This isn’t about age.

              • ObliviousEnlightenment@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Well a law is a hell of a lot harder to enforce if it’s not drawing a line somewhere in the sand, and I’d rather disqualify someone we should than qualify someone we shouldn’t

                • enbyecho@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Perfectly happy to draw a line in the sand, it should just be based on what we care about - competence, intelligence, experience, not being a raging psychopath… that kind of thing. Saying 65 is too old is no better than saying 35 is too young.

              • Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                Youre entirely right. How exactly will you enforce a law that says “unless youre still sharp as a tack at 80”, though? There has to be a provable line or else the law is meaningless.

    • Thief_of_Crows@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      A) Biden is going to lose to trump. B) The only chance we have to have a living president thats not trump is to nominate someone else. Anybody sane has already written off biden as dead. I guarantee you the entire white house staff has.

    • kromem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yes, Caligula’s horse would be a preferable vote to cast over Trump.

      That doesn’t mean a wise opposition to Trump would choose to run Caligula’s horse.

      The question of “who to vote against in the general election” and “who is the best candidate to put forward as nominee in the general election” are very different questions.

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    He would probably do better than Biden at debating Trump too.

    Trump: "And what I did is I put three great Supreme Court justices on the court, and they happened to vote in favor of killing Roe v. Wade and moving it back to the states. This is something that everybody wanted. "
    Carter: “Eh…coughtwheeze
    Audience: “Yup Carter won that round”

    • KillerTofu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      You see, unlike his predecessor he did divest himself of his personal businesses before taking office.

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Why do their houses have so few and such small windows? They’re stockpiling the glass to build a huge lens that will focus the sun’s rays to destroy the moon. The resulting storm of superheated asteroids pelting the Earth will destroy many homes, allowing them to swoop in and build new ones for everyone.

        You heard it here first.

    • Snowclone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s hilarious that he sold his peanut farm so people wouldn’t worry he was self dealing as President. Which is funny because HW Bush just changed the laws so he COULD self deal without divesting in actual wealth.

  • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Like I’ve said before, all we need is someone to make it over the finish line before dropping dead