What happens to the Republican Party now? (1 Viewer)

[MT15]

This election nonsense by Trump may end up splitting up the Republican Party. I just don’t see how the one third (?) who are principled conservatives can stay in the same party with Trump sycophants who are willing to sign onto the TX Supreme Court case.

We also saw the alt right types chanting “destroy the GOP” in Washington today because they didn’t keep Trump in power. I think the Q types will also hold the same ill will toward the traditional Republican Party. In fact its quite possible that all the voters who are really in a Trump personality cult will also blame the GOP for his loss. It’s only a matter of time IMO before Trump himself gets around to blaming the GOP.

There is some discussion of this on Twitter. What do you all think?

 

[Taurus]

It's a sad thing to see. I just have a hard time coming up with much empathy for a man who's done so much to cripple the nation I love.

I also hope he does run in '26. It'll mean that A: he's still alive and B: He'll probably lose.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

That man needs to retire and spend time with his family while he can. Nothing can be worth doing this to yourself and missing out on those memories you aren't making with loved ones.

 

[coldseat]

Him, Feinstein and Grassley, these power brokers in Washington need to learn when to let go. The cognitive decline is obvious.

We really need to set an age limit for all of government. Maybe 70/75 years old, including the Supreme Court. People older than the age limit can be brought in as advisor and whatnot, but not in control of any government function or official office.

 

[Optimus Prime]

That's two incidents in what 2, 3 months?

That has to be scary, for him and those close to him

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Him, Feinstein and Grassley, these power brokers in Washington need to learn when to let go. The cognitive decline is obvious.

We really need to set an age limit for all of government. Maybe 70/75 years old, including the Supreme Court. People older than the age limit can be brought in as advisor and whatnot, but not in control of any government function or official office.

This all day. It's a true disservice to their constituents.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

This all day. It's a true disservice to their constituents.

and i bet instead of addressing it, he'll just make a joke about Biden tripping over a sand bag..

 

[DaveXA]

That was disturbing. He and Diane Feinstein both need to call it a day and retire. Life will go on in Congress without them.

 

[DaveXA]

Him, Feinstein and Grassley, these power brokers in Washington need to learn when to let go. The cognitive decline is obvious.

We really need to set an age limit for all of government. Maybe 70/75 years old, including the Supreme Court. People older than the age limit can be brought in as advisor and whatnot, but not in control of any government function or official office.

I'd support a 70 age limit for all politicians and appointed government officials including President and SCOTUS. It could be 70 or under by the time their term starts, although that would be different for SCOTUS because they don't currently have term limitations.

 

[bird]

But Biden is too old and Trump is not.

Yeesh.

 

[MT15]

This is who the GOP wants to be president - an immoral grifter

 

[MT15]

But Biden is too old and Trump is not.

Yeesh.

Yep.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Him, Feinstein and Grassley, these power brokers in Washington need to learn when to let go. The cognitive decline is obvious.

We really need to set an age limit for all of government. Maybe 70/75 years old, including the Supreme Court. People older than the age limit can be brought in as advisor and whatnot, but not in control of any government function or official office.

I think setting an age limit is unfairly and arbitrarily discriminatory. There have been people in their 90's and 100's who had no signs of any significant cognitive decline. I think every elected official should be required to pass both a cognitive and psychological screening before being put on the ballot for any election. A 20 year old can have significant cognitive or psychological impairments.

We make people prove they meet age, residence and other qualifications. I think the public has the right to demand that candidates also prove they meet cognitive and psychological qualifications. A lot more damage is done to the public good because of cognitive or psychological impairments than is done by people being too young or living in the wrong place.

We need our standards for the basic qualifications of a candidate for public office to catch up with 21st century knowledge and the lessons we've learned since then, instead of clinging to the standards created in the late 18th century based on the inadequate and outdated knowledge of the late 18th century.

 

[DaveXA]

I think setting an age limit is unfairly and arbitrarily discriminatory. There have been people in their 90's and 100's who had no signs of any significant cognitive decline. I think every elected official should be required to pass both a cognitive and psychological screening before being put on the ballot for any election. A 20 year old can have significant cognitive or psychological impairments.

We make people prove they meet age, residence and other qualifications. I think the public has the right to demand that candidates also prove they meet cognitive and psychological qualifications. A lot more damage is done to the public good because of cognitive or psychological impairments than is done by people being too young or living in the wrong place.

We need our standards for the basic qualifications of a candidate for public office to catch up with 21st century knowledge and the lessons we've learned since then, instead of clinging to the standards created in the late 18th century based on the inadequate and outdated knowledge of the late 18th century.

Sorry, but no. While aging affects everyone differently, it still affects everyone. And some more than others. Setting an age limit isn't arbitrary. We do it all the time. There's a minimum age to get a DL, a minimum age to drink, vote, etc. There are some federal agencies that actually have a maximum age to become an agent.

There absolutely should be a maximum age for critical federal positions. If you're 70+ in public service, it's time to pass the baton to someone else.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Sorry, but no. While aging affects everyone differently, it still affects everyone. And some more than others. Setting an age limit isn't arbitrary. We do it all the time. There's a minimum age to get a DL, a minimum age to drink, vote, etc. There are some federal agencies that actually have a maximum age to become an agent.

There absolutely should be a maximum age for critical federal positions. If you're 70+ in public service, it's time to pass the baton to someone else.

Not sorry, but no. Your response is the epitome of an arbitrary standard. You agree that not all people age the same, but then boldly turn around and insist we should still have a maximum age limit of 70. That is the very definition of an arbitrary standard. Why 70? Why not 60? Why not 75? Why not 80? What non-arbitrary reason do you have for drawing such a definitive and rigid line at 70?

Do you know why the decision was made for 21 to be the minimum age on drinking and other recreational drugs? Hint, it's grounded in science and not at all arbitrary. Age limits existing doesn't mean those age limits were not arbitrarily picked. We shouldn't have any arbitrarily picked standards that discriminate against people.

Let's apply your logic to other areas. Most women get through menopause without severe impairment, but they are all affected by it to some degree, so no menopausal women in office. Most women get through pregnancy without severe mental/emotional issues, but they are all affected to some degree, so no pregnant women in office either.

I know you're going to say "those are not the same thing." You're right, they're different forms of arbitrary discrimination, but it's the exact same logic that you are using to demand we have arbitrary age discrimination.

We also used to set restrictions based on skin color and we still have restrictions based on gender. That doesn't make those restrictions any less arbitrary and discriminatory. Just because we jump off the cliff in some areas, doesn't mean that jumping off the cliff in other areas is wise or justified.

Your mindset is exactly why age discrimination is the most accepted form of discrimination. Good luck to you when you are on the wrong side of that discrimination, because if we live long enough, it's coming for all of us and it's a very unkind and lonely place.

 

[Incumbent]

As I succumb further to cynicism, I’m not entirely convinced that McConnell’s odd behavior isn’t part of a scheme to cause people to lose confidence in Biden’s age, and that Ol’ Mitch will eventually get caught on camera, yucking it up, coherent and evil as ever.

But if he is actually suffering, well…

 

[LA - L.A.]

As I succumb further to cynicism, I’m not entirely convinced that McConnell’s odd behavior isn’t part of a scheme to cause people to lose confidence in Biden’s age, and that Ol’ Mitch will eventually get caught on camera, yucking it up, coherent and evil as ever.

But if he is actually suffering, well…

I think Mitch is morally capable of that being the devout disciple of Machiavelli that he is. I think he has legitimate health issues, because the Republican party in both the Senate and the House are not as publicly united as Mitch kept them and they are doing things that are costing them in elections, another thing Mitch kept them from doing.

Congressional Republicans for the past couple of years have acted like a political army that switched from following the orders of Rommel to following the orders of Hitler. I don't think that happens unless Mitch has been having legitimate health issues.

 

[superchuck500]

I think setting an age limit is unfairly and arbitrarily discriminatory. There have been people in their 90's and 100's who had no signs of any significant cognitive decline. I think every elected official should be required to pass both a cognitive and psychological screening before being put on the ballot for any election. A 20 year old can have significant cognitive or psychological impairments.

We make people prove they meet age, residence and other qualifications. I think the public has the right to demand that candidates also prove they meet cognitive and psychological qualifications. A lot more damage is done to the public good because of cognitive or psychological impairments than is done by people being too young or living in the wrong place.

We need our standards for the basic qualifications of a candidate for public office to catch up with 21st century knowledge and the lessons we've learned since then, instead of clinging to the standards created in the late 18th century based on the inadequate and outdated knowledge of the late 18th century.

I agree both on the point that an arbitrary age limit is probably harmful because some fully competent leaders will be forced to retire and take their valuable experience with them for no real reason. But also there’s substantial doubt that we could impose an age limit on some of those positions without a constitutional amendment.

 

[DaveXA]

I agree both on the point that an arbitrary age limit is probably harmful because some fully competent leaders will be forced to retire and take their valuable experience with them for no real reason. But also there’s substantial doubt that we could impose an age limit on some of those positions without a constitutional amendment.

Well, there is a real reason though. And that is that enough people over X age have a diminished capacity to perform their duties effectively. Ordinarily, I'd like to think that voters understand that there are inherent risks to electing and appointing individuals in key positions in government where they're not easily replaced.

And I'm not expecting there will be an age limit anytime soon, so I don't think it will happen, but we're seeing people ignoring their health and suffering the consequences. The problem happens when those officials refuse to acknowledge their diminished capabilities and as a consequence, hurt their constituents.

The President can be removed because of an inability to carry out his duties, but has that ever actually happened?