• JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yeah I’m not arguing that. But the point is different… He’s talking about longevity, not acumen.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      No, it doesn’t apply, at least not for the same logic. He didn’t say that because the older people are less capable. He said it because a younger person will give you control for longer most likely. They’re lifetime appointments, so the logical choice for maintaining control is to appoint healthy young people, not the most qualified people.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        I follow the logic, but I would also argue if the chances are always higher of a sitting President to win the following term, the GOP would have been better off running anyone who had not already held office and can maintain control for a possible 8 years and not just 4? So he would be saying Republicans should have voted for Nicky Haley in the primaries.

        Edit: Nah - I guess that is a bit different, because they could argue idiots already liked him, so he stood a better chance at getting back in and they didn’t believe she could I guess