• ALostInquirer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      Isn’t Trump in the same boat? Trump’s 77, Biden’s 81. One may easily argue they’re both much too old to be running.

      • Takatakatakatakatak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        Neither of them represents an acceptable choice to lead a party. That’s kind of my point.

        If these are the only two viable candidates then something is completely broken and needs to change.

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      That’s what we get with a two party system. The parties don’t really need to compete through better policy, simply spending more and being marginally less bad in the eyes of the voters on your side of the line is enough of a strategy for them.

      If 3rd parties were viable, democrats would actually have to compete in the ways that matter, and we wouldn’t see shitty politicians like Biden as much.

      But we’re not going to get that until election reform (STAR & Approval voting, ban on money in politics, etc) happens.

      • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Gaetz talked of banning money in politics. This could have been an easy win for Dems by taking him up on writing that legislation. Interesting that they chose not to pursue the one issue everyone in the US agrees on.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah and Trump said he’d get rid of corruption in the government.

          I trust a Republican as far as I can throw them. Never forget that McConnell filibustered his own bill when Obama said he supported it. Gaetz is just setting up a football to grab away at the last minute.

          • IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            It’s still an easy win policy. Nothing would expose corruption more than having people vote against corruption and seeing who voted the bill down

            • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t see the harm in it, fair enough. Even if it’s politically unwise to take action against Democrats who vote for it, in my opinion, it’s still worthwhile to know where they stand. Down the road, when we aren’t fighting an existential christofascist threat, we know who to vote out. Or, we can see who suddenly feels very strongly for it, after having voted against it.

          • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Never forget that McConnell filibustered his own bill when Obama said he supported it.

            It was shockingly amazing to see this, jaw-dropping actually.

            I wonder if that’s the first time in Congress history that something like that ever happened.

    • piecat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Age limits are something we should talk about in general, but using that as the reason to discount only one candidate is asinine