632
Top Trump donor 'stunned' after he lashed out at her in a series of 'angry texts'
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
632 points (97.6% liked)
News
23367 readers
4478 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.