The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[teachercd]

Just now, Notre Dame Joe said:

Bass ackwards.  Modern medicine has kept people alive and functional far longer than in previous generations.  But it has not made the youths any more the wiser. If anything our safe space incubator had delayed adulthood compared to the children of different eras.  And we have nearly two years of AOC reminding us of the wisdom of the Founding Fathers.

Yeah, I mean that is true that people live way longer...

 

And it is true that AOC is sort of a nitwit (who in two years will have a podcast show where she will be making 10 million a year, which is crazy)

 

But older doesn't always mean wiser, more experienced (usually). 

[knapplc]

5 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

I call it Reality Hill.  Many honest men die there and are called fools by their more shrewd deserters.

 

[BigRedBuster]

20 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I think you mean the US government. Voters can discriminate with their vote for any reason they want. And we're already doing it with the minimum age. I say if we have an age minimum we should consider an age maximum. I would be a lot less worried voting for a capable 30 year old than a capable 75 year old. Personally I think the minimum age should be 18. 

No, I mean the voter, because they would ultimately be the ones demanding the maximum age be set by the government and they are the ones voting in the candidate.

 

Minimum ages for various things is a bad example.  It's been proven over and over again that it's legal to have a minimum age at something.  However, it's also been proven over and over again that an employer can be screwed if he uses age to not hire someone because they are too old.  

 

There are many things I can not ask in an interview or on an application and "how old are you" is a huge one specifically for this reason.

[teachercd]

58 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

No, I mean the voter, because they would ultimately be the ones demanding the maximum age be set by the government and they are the ones voting in the candidate.

 

Minimum ages for various things is a bad example.  It's been proven over and over again that it's legal to have a minimum age at something.  However, it's also been proven over and over again that an employer can be screwed if he uses age to not hire someone because they are too old.  

 

There are many things I can not ask in an interview or on an application and "how old are you" is a huge one specifically for this reason.

Yeah, like the old interview question "Oh, you are engaged?  Will you be starting a family soon?"

[Moiraine]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

No, I mean the voter, because they would ultimately be the ones demanding the maximum age be set by the government and they are the ones voting in the candidate.

 

Minimum ages for various things is a bad example.  It's been proven over and over again that it's legal to have a minimum age at something.  However, it's also been proven over and over again that an employer can be screwed if he uses age to not hire someone because they are too old.  

 

There are many things I can not ask in an interview or on an application and "how old are you" is a huge one specifically for this reason.

 

 

 

I’m not following but maybe I’m missing something.

 

Voters can legally discriminate however they want with their vote. They can vote for only White males based solely on their Whiteness and maleness. They can vote for Trump solely because they think he’ll kick out all of the Hispanics. You asked why a voter should be able to discriminate - the reason why is it’s because it’s their right to vote how they want. There are hundreds of reasons for that and I don’t think I need to get far into that but it would be a slippery slope deciding who’s too racist, sexist, stupid too vote because you’d have to decide who decides. 

It’s the government’s responsiblity to not act based solely on their voters’ dumb desires, but on what’s legal/moral/best for the country. Therefore the question should be why should the government discriminate based on age by making people older than 75 inelligible to run for office. 

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

I’m not following but maybe I’m missing something.

 

Voters can legally discriminate however they want with their vote. They can vote for only White males based solely on their Whiteness and maleness. They can vote for Trump solely because they think he’ll kick out all of the Hispanics. You asked why a voter should be able to discriminate - the reason why is it’s because it’s their right to vote how they want. There are hundreds of reasons for that and I don’t think I need to get far into that but it would be a slippery slope deciding who’s too racist, sexist, stupid too vote because you’d have to decide who decides. 

It’s the government’s responsiblity to not act based solely on their voters’ dumb desires, but on what’s legal/moral/best for the country.

You can vote for whomever you want.  My point is in the government making a law where someone over XX age can't run for President.

 

I would not be surprised if the government would put in place, at some point in time, an upper age limit.

 

My point is, then why can't I?  I would be sued till I was driven in the ground if I came out and said..."I'm not hiring anyone over 55 for ______ job".

[Notre Dame Joe]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

You can vote for whomever you want.  My point is in the government making a law where someone over XX age can't run for President.

 

I would not be surprised if the government would put in place, at some point in time, an upper age limit.

 

My point is, then why can't I?  I would be sued till I was driven in the ground if I came out and said..."I'm not hiring anyone over 55 for ______ job".

 

That age maximum law would be unconstitutional and thus would require an amendment.  It wouldn't be an awful idea to discuss (unlike limitations on the rights of voters) because people may have a lifespan much longer than previously believed.  Someone said the first 150 year old person has already been born.  What if she received an appointment to the federal judicary, for life.

 

 

 

 

 

[funhusker]

3 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Trump needs to step up and say that Jackson will stay on the $20 because of his actions to support our Republic.  The mob needs to learn that great leaders have never been nice guys with sweet opinions on social justice.  Now for political reasons it can be delayed til his 2nd term, or the next President Trump.

I feel sorry for you.

 

The best leaders I’ve ever interacted with (faith leaders, school administrators, former bosses, etc) have been absolutely great people that believe Social justice.

[Moiraine]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

You can vote for whomever you want.  My point is in the government making a law where someone over XX age can't run for President.

 

I would not be surprised if the government would put in place, at some point in time, an upper age limit.

 

My point is, then why can't I?  I would be sued till I was driven in the ground if I came out and said..."I'm not hiring anyone over 55 for ______ job".

 

 

Yes, that makes sense.

 

I don't know that I truly believe there should be a max voting age. Instead, we should have more discerning voters.

 

That said... it could be argued that since it's close to impossible to fire a president (as we've really been shown during the Trump era), it's a bit different. Businesses can fire employees for lots of reasons. Just not for some protected reasons. If your employee started to drop things/destroy things, screw things up and endangered other people, you could probably pretty easily get rid of him. Age wouldn't be the reason you're firing him, but it would be the reason he began to get bad at his job.

[RedDenver]

5 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

I call it Reality Hill.  Many honest men die there and are called fools by their more shrewd deserters.

Haha!! Thanks for the laugh.

 

"It's a long climb up Fools' Hill" -Marlon Brando

[Notre Dame Joe]

6 hours ago, funhusker said:

I feel sorry for you.

 

The best leaders I’ve ever interacted with (faith leaders, school administrators, former bosses, etc) have been absolutely great people that believe Social justice.

 

Bravo for you.  But can your friends save New Orleans from a professional British army with only a ragtag band of vagabonds?

[Notre Dame Joe]

In the worst thing to come out of the neo-Spanish Inquisition, Google decided to strong arm two conservative websites, ostensibly for comments left by users and not staff. The threat was that those sites must censor their posters or be blacklisted from ad revenue by Google. Now this should be repulsive to any real American.  Regardless, the same people would do it to Huskerboard.  To whomever owns HB,  I will have absolutely no hard feelings if you ban me to save your business.  The human race has been around a long time, and very few actually lived in a time and place where they could dissent without fear of reprisal.  And our time for that may be coming to an end. 

[funhusker]

5 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

In the worst thing to come out of the neo-Spanish Inquisition, Google decided to strong arm two conservative websites, ostensibly for comments left by users and not staff. The threat was that those sites must censor their posters or be blacklisted from ad revenue by Google. Now this should be repulsive to any real American.  Regardless, the same people would do it to Huskerboard.  To whomever owns HB,  I will have absolutely no hard feelings if you ban me to save your business.  The human race has been around a long time, and very few actually lived in a time and place where they could dissent without fear of reprisal.  And our time for that may be coming to an end. 

Uh oh, this is the death throws of a poster.

 

Claim the victim and proclaim HB intolerable to conservative thought,

 

Youve broken no rules, Joe.  You aren’t getting banned.  You just make a lot of posts that make a lot of people shake their heads, including conservatives.

[knapplc]

Bolton's going to cite this and just publish the book anyway.

 

“On or around April 27, 2020, Ms. Knight [the reviewer] had completed her review and was of the judgment that the manuscript draft did not contain classified information. Ms. Knight informed NSC Legal of the status of the review.”

 

So the only reason for Trump not to want this published is it's going to paint him, personally, in a bad light.  And he's trying to use the Department of Justice to block it.

 

Where're all our Constitutional scholars decrying Trump's actions here? 

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

18 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Trump needs to step up and say that Jackson will stay on the $20 because of his actions to support our Republic.  The mob needs to learn that great leaders have never been nice guys with sweet opinions on social justice.  Now for political reasons it can be delayed til his 2nd term, or the next President Trump.

I hope you continue to post here, because your posts are very enlightening.  It reminds me of being around a friend of mine about a week ago and he was pissed off at the world.  He's close to the biggest Trump supporter I know...and that's saying something living in central Nebraska.  What I realized is, he's really pissed off because he's slowly becoming more and more of a minority in supporting Trump.  Your comments about "the mob" basically says the same thing.  Trump supporters are becoming more and more uncomfortable and mad because their group is becoming smaller and smaller.

 

FYI....it's not "a mob"...it's Americans more and more waking up to the incompetent snowflake in the Whitehouse.  And, I can understand that really pissing off his most ardent supporters like my friend I mentioned above.  Like you, my friend above will be the last sailers on the Trump ship as it's sinking.

 

Maybe, instead of writing them off as "the mob", you should try to understand why the voices for change in the Whitehouse are growing so large and loud.