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?

 

[LA - L.A.]

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.

Says who?

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI)

Does mild cognitive impairment always lead to dementia? Find out in this article.

my.clevelandclinic.org

What’s the difference between mild cognitive impairment and mental decline due to aging?​

It’s natural and expected to have some gradual mental decline as you age. For example, learning new information may take longer than before. Or your speed of performance may get slower.

But these declines due to aging don’t affect your overall functioning or ability to perform daily activities. Normal aging doesn’t affect recognition, intelligence or long-term memory.

Significant cognitive impairment is rare and not a part of natural aging. It's always tied to disease. Most cases of them are in older populations, but they are still rare even in those older populations.

Even mild cognitive impairment is generally rare until over the age of 85.

The American Academy of Neurology estimates that mild cognitive impairment is present in the following populations:

• 8% of people aged 65 to 69.
• 15% of people aged 75 to 79.
• 25% of people aged 80 to 84.
• 37% of people 85 or older.

Our society believes and perpetuates a lot of myths about normal aging. There are and have been a lot of people in Congress as old or older than Feinstein and Mitch that didn't suffer from cognitive impairment like Mitch and Feinstein seem to be.

There are a lot more people under the age of 70 holding elected positions that are part of a demographic at a significantly higher risk of strokes that could lead to significant cognitive impairment or death. Should we ban anyone that smokes, is overweight, eats a diet high in processed food, drinks alcohol, has high cholesterol, has high blood pressure, doesn't get enough sleep and/or doesn't get enough physical activity?

 

[coldseat]

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 with you that setting and age limit is arbitrary and discriminatory. I appreciate the nuance you're bringing to the discussion in terms of age related cognitive and psychological health, unfortunately I don't think there's a feasible way to politically incorporate that into law for elected positions. Any board or group of people that would be the arbiters of deciding if a person of advanced age is cognitively capable of serving in a position of responsibility within our government would immediately be subject to political manipulation and attacks. The only real way to get something like this to work and passed through Congress would be to have a hard limit that's applicable to all. We do the same with minimum ages, so I don't think it's unreasonable to have a maximum limit on age.

There are also other reasons beyond cognitive ability that it would make sense to have a hard age limit, such as older representative making decision that will impact generations long after they're gone. This is something that's brought up constantly and is a valid point.

I say all of this as somebody who will be voting for Joe Biden and has no qualms about it. I also have parents in their 70's who are both still fully cognitively and physiologically functional, but I can still see the decline in mental acuity from even 5 to 10 years ago. At their age, I wouldn't want my parents in a high stress job. Thankfully, they're both retired.

 

[Optimus Prime]

We do the same with minimum ages, so I don't think it's unreasonable to have a maximum limit on age.

Yes, a cap of maximum age would put some people out who don't need to be, but it goes the other way too

Are there mature and responsible 20 year olds who could handle drinking alcohol just fine? Sure. Too bad can't legally drink

Are there politically active and aware 17 years olds? Sure. Too bad, can't legally vote

 

[CoolBrees]

I believe you would be violating the 14th amendment with an age cap restriction.

Ironically, youth are the only age group not protected from age discrimination. We age limit all kinds of stuff.

At work, you just have to call it "experience" instead of age. Kind of hard to be hired at a director level that requires 20 years experience when you are 32.

Most of the Founders of these tech corps wouldn't be able to be a Director let alone sit on their own Board if they had not founded the place. You can't get even get an interview. You have to work your way up which means having to climb over the old dead weight. It is enough to make a young person give up on the whole system. Or try to reinvent it.

 

[superchuck500]

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?

Warren Buffett is 93. He's still CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and many observers say he's still in full control, sharp as ever.

Even if that's not 100% true (and it might be), you're talking about whether Warren Buffett had "diminished capacity to perform duties" over the past 23 years. The evidence is simply that he hasn't.

Warren Buffett, who turns 93, is at the top of his game as he pushes Berkshire Hathaway to new heights

Berkshire shares have roared back to an all-time high on record operating profit, making it the biggest nontech company by market capitalization.

www.cnbc.com

The real problem is, as you identify, that these people and their supporters refuse to accept that they are no longer in capacity. And because our legislative system rewards seniority both in rank and respect, their party leaders are unwilling to speak out because they need that seniority - and they just apply it through their top staff members.

I don't know, an arbitrary number seems a poor choice - and certainly not 70. Maybe I'd be okay with it if it were higher. But if we're adding an age limit as an element of eligibility for office, I think that would require a constitutional amendment.

 

[coldseat]

Warren Buffett is 93. He's still CEO of Berkshire Hathaway and many observers say he's still in full control, sharp as ever.

Even if that's not 100% true (and it might be), you're talking about whether Warren Buffett had "diminished capacity to perform duties" over the past 23 years. The evidence is simply that he hasn't.

Warren Buffett, who turns 93, is at the top of his game as he pushes Berkshire Hathaway to new heights

Berkshire shares have roared back to an all-time high on record operating profit, making it the biggest nontech company by market capitalization.

www.cnbc.com

The real problem is, as you identify, that these people and their supporters refuse to accept that they are no longer in capacity. And because our legislative system rewards seniority both in rank and respect, their party leaders are unwilling to speak out because they need that seniority - and they just apply it through their top staff members.

I don't know, an arbitrary number seems a poor choice - and certainly not 70. Maybe I'd be okay with it if it were higher. But if we're adding an age limit as an element of eligibility for office, I think that would require a constitutional amendment.

I think the difference is that private industry has ways to force change in this area when the problems with cognitive abilities become obvious. Government, as we're seeing now, does not have effective ways to deal with it. There are also incentives to not deal with it due to our partisan and bifurcated system of government. The impacts are also less severe when you're talking about one company as opposed to a whole government.

 

[superchuck500]

Okay, so honest question - do Democrats do this too? Here we have two examples, just in the last 24 hours of Republicans patently lying to the public to generate a response they can capitalize on. We're not talking about playing loose with facts or arguments, we're talking about pure falsity. And what does it say about their constituents that they don't even respect them enough not to lie to their faces to get them to react like puppets.

But are there recent examples of democrats doing this? Like taking an objective issue and just lying about it to generate a response? I'm not talking about mislabeling something (like democrats saying a DeSantis move is 'fascist' or Republicans saying something is 'communist'), I'm talking about X "is going to happen" when it just isn't.

First, you have Trump and now JD Vance insisting that "the left" is going to "impose" new Covid-related "lock downs" in September. This is clearly 100% false, and pretty plainly stupid. But they know that resisting those kinds of measures was something their constituency was energetic about . . . so manufacturer a new concern, tell them a lie that it's happening, and that will get them excited for you. Just as simple as that! Really?




Second example, from last night. After reports of a comment from the White House's expert on alcohol abuse in the US that the US "might consider a recommendation like Canada's to limit beer consumption to two beers a week", which isn't even a US guideline at this point, just a comment. But the federal government has all sorts of diet and health recommendations from how many glasses of water to drink to how to limit consumption of red meat. They're guidance and have no force of law, and everyone knows that. But that doesn't stop Ted Cruz from posting this pure performative video, "they can kiss my arse!" Does he do the same thing about how many vegetables they recommend? Like what?

 

[superchuck500]

I believe you would be violating the 14th amendment with an age cap restriction.

Ironically, youth are the only age group not protected from age discrimination. We age limit all kinds of stuff.

At work, you just have to call it "experience" instead of age. Kind of hard to be hired at a director level that requires 20 years experience when you are 32.

Most of the Founders of these tech corps wouldn't be able to be a Director let alone sit on their own Board if they had not founded the place. You can't get even get an interview. You have to work your way up which means having to climb over the old dead weight. It is enough to make a young person give up on the whole system. Or try to reinvent it.

Purely on constitutional equal protection, age has a fairly low level of scrutiny relative to the other suspect classes. I think age is generally on a rational basis test, which means that the state's interest in having an age-based rule must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest (as opposed to heightened scrutiny that may require a "compelling" state interest and minimal tailoring).

Many age-based rules withstand constitutional scrutiny when a similar rule against a different class (e.g. religion) would not.

 

[efil4]

Second example, from last night. After reports of a comment from the White House's expert on alcohol abuse in the US that the US "might consider a recommendation like Canada's to limit beer consumption to two beers a week", which isn't even a US guideline at this point, just a comment. But the federal government has all sorts of diet and health recommendations from how many glasses of water to drink to how to limit consumption of red meat. They're guidance and have no force of law, and everyone knows that. But that doesn't stop Ted Cruz from posting this pure performative video, "they can kiss my arse!" Does he do the same thing about how many vegetables they recommend? Like what?

dont forget the segway directly to the next dog whistle issue- reminding folks how bad Bud Light branding as been.

They all want to be something they will never be. These videos are for a targeted audience that, at this point, has a pavlovian response they desire.

Watch his face after his second sip of the Shiner....not too tasty eh Cruz.

He strikes me more of a light cocktail guy really.

 

[CoolBrees]

Purely on constitutional equal protection, age has a fairly low level of scrutiny relative to the other suspect classes. I think age is generally on a rational basis test, which means that the state's interest in having an age-based rule must be rationally related to a legitimate state interest (as opposed to heightened scrutiny that may require a "compelling" state interest and minimal tailoring).

Many age-based rules withstand constitutional scrutiny when a similar rule against a different class (e.g. religion) would not.

Cool then fork em!

 

[SteveSBrickNJ]

GOP senators weigh 'special' meeting on their leadership after McConnell's freeze

It takes just five Republicans to force such a sitdown, the most direct way to specifically discuss their future amid revived questions about the leader's health.

www.yahoo.com

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

..................................................... There are and have been a lot of people in Congress as old or older than Feinstein and Mitch that didn't suffer from cognitive impairment like Mitch and Feinstein seem to be.

.........................................................

There have also been several people in Congress over 75 or 80 who did suffer impairments. The problem was that they didn't want to quit, and people kept electing them.

Why Dianne Feinstein, Like Many Before Her, Refuses to Let Go (Published 2023)

A life in Congress comes with power, prestige and perks that can be hard to leave behind. For some lawmakers who view their job as their identity, the prospect is unthinkable.

www.nytimes.com

"Giving up the power, perks and prestige of serving in Congress, while confronting the reality that everyone is ultimately replaceable, isn’t always so easy. And politics at its highest levels tends to attract people who consider their job their identity — Senator Dianne Feinstein refers to hers as a “calling” — and who are afflicted with an inability to imagine a life after giving it up.

History is littered with lawmakers who have stayed around well past their primes; assurances from former colleagues like Mr. Harkin that there’s a nice life to be had on the other side can fall on (sometimes literally) deaf ears.

Strom Thurmond, the South Carolina Republican, famously hung on until past his 100th birthday. Robert C. Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat, died in office at age 92 after 51 years in the Senate. Despite serious medical issues, Thad Cochran, Republican of Mississippi, ran for re-election at 76, with the prospect of leading the powerful Appropriations Committee too good to pass up — though he later resigned before the end of his term, citing his failing health."

 

[bdb13]

I'd probably support an age limit of 80 at the time of taking office or at the time of the election. 70 or 75 would seem to be too low to me.

We have several current examples of politicians over 80 in McConnell, Feinstein, and Biden (and probably others) who run the spectrum from not possessing their fastball to not knowing where the hell they are.

 

[MT15]

Okay, so honest question - do Democrats do this too? Here we have two examples, just in the last 24 hours of Republicans patently lying to the public to generate a response they can capitalize on. We're not talking about playing loose with facts or arguments, we're talking about pure falsity. And what does it say about their constituents that they don't even respect them enough not to lie to their faces to get them to react like puppets.

But are there recent examples of democrats doing this? Like taking an objective issue and just lying about it to generate a response? I'm not talking about mislabeling something (like democrats saying a DeSantis move is 'fascist' or Republicans saying something is 'communist'), I'm talking about X "is going to happen" when it just isn't.

First, you have Trump and now JD Vance insisting that "the left" is going to "impose" new Covid-related "lock downs" in September. This is clearly 100% false, and pretty plainly stupid. But they know that resisting those kinds of measures was something their constituency was energetic about . . . so manufacturer a new concern, tell them a lie that it's happening, and that will get them excited for you. Just as simple as that! Really?




Second example, from last night. After reports of a comment from the White House's expert on alcohol abuse in the US that the US "might consider a recommendation like Canada's to limit beer consumption to two beers a week", which isn't even a US guideline at this point, just a comment. But the federal government has all sorts of diet and health recommendations from how many glasses of water to drink to how to limit consumption of red meat. They're guidance and have no force of law, and everyone knows that. But that doesn't stop Ted Cruz from posting this pure performative video, "they can kiss my arse!" Does he do the same thing about how many vegetables they recommend? Like what?

They didn’t make those lies up, they are amplifying conspiracy theories that have been floating around the webs for a bit. I’m of the opinion that a lot of these are started by foreign hostile government actors on line and amplified by people who are useful idiots. The one about 2-beer limits is simple enough to possibly be organic, just idiots repeating what other idiots say. But the Covid lockdown one seemed to be to be a coordinated attack - it sprang up out of nowhere and was all over the place in a very short time.

My question is - why are US Senators aiding and abetting these efforts to sow chaos in our society? The GOP, if there were any true leaders left who take their oaths seriously, should be all over Cruz and Vance for advancing this nonsense.

 

[V Chip]

Okay, so honest question - do Democrats do this too?

No, no they don't. At least not to this level of idiocy. I'm sure they have some similar things they have done, but I honestly can't recall outright lies or completely deliberate misrepresentations by large groups of Democrats/liberals like this.

I mean, we have a whole group of Republicans in a legislature deliberately lying/misrepresenting what is happening in their sessions to remove black lawmakers, or lying about assaulting one of them, just because they have the power to do so. When have Democrats ever done this kind of thing?

 

[MT15]

No, no they don't. At least not to this level of idiocy. I'm sure they have some similar things they have done, but I honestly can't recall outright lies or completely deliberate misrepresentations by large groups of Democrats/liberals like this.

I mean, we have a whole group of Republicans in a legislature deliberately lying/misrepresenting what is happening in their sessions to remove black lawmakers, or lying about assaulting one of them, just because they have the power to do so. When have Democrats ever done this kind of thing?

Well, MAGAs will say (incessantly lol) that Democrats made up the whole Russia thing about Trump. It’s not true AT ALL, but that little bit of propaganda has worked extremely well. MAGA is very good at gaslighting and accusing others of what they are doing. Without the support of extreme media this wouldn’t work nearly as well as it does, but we have an entire ecosystem of grifters and liars pumping this propaganda into the system. I don’t know what can be done, especially when the actual GOP just hops on board the crazy train like they do. It’s depressing as hell.

 

[Booker]

Okay, so honest question - do Democrats do this too? Here we have two examples, just in the last 24 hours of Republicans patently lying to the public to generate a response they can capitalize on. We're not talking about playing loose with facts or arguments, we're talking about pure falsity. And what does it say about their constituents that they don't even respect them enough not to lie to their faces to get them to react like puppets.

But are there recent examples of democrats doing this? Like taking an objective issue and just lying about it to generate a response? I'm not talking about mislabeling something (like democrats saying a DeSantis move is 'fascist' or Republicans saying something is 'communist'), I'm talking about X "is going to happen" when it just isn't.

First, you have Trump and now JD Vance insisting that "the left" is going to "impose" new Covid-related "lock downs" in September. This is clearly 100% false, and pretty plainly stupid. But they know that resisting those kinds of measures was something their constituency was energetic about . . . so manufacturer a new concern, tell them a lie that it's happening, and that will get them excited for you. Just as simple as that! Really?




Second example, from last night. After reports of a comment from the White House's expert on alcohol abuse in the US that the US "might consider a recommendation like Canada's to limit beer consumption to two beers a week", which isn't even a US guideline at this point, just a comment. But the federal government has all sorts of diet and health recommendations from how many glasses of water to drink to how to limit consumption of red meat. They're guidance and have no force of law, and everyone knows that. But that doesn't stop Ted Cruz from posting this pure performative video, "they can kiss my arse!" Does he do the same thing about how many vegetables they recommend? Like what?

Hmmm, Democratic fear mongering. I can recall claims such as…

Republicans will roll back affirmative action…

Republicans are going to reverse Roe v. Wade…

Trump might not willingly leave office…

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Okay, so honest question - do Democrats do this too? Here we have two examples, just in the last 24 hours of Republicans patently lying to the public to generate a response they can capitalize on. We're not talking about playing loose with facts or arguments, we're talking about pure falsity. And what does it say about their constituents that they don't even respect them enough not to lie to their faces to get them to react like puppets.

But are there recent examples of democrats doing this? Like taking an objective issue and just lying about it to generate a response? I'm not talking about mislabeling something (like democrats saying a DeSantis move is 'fascist' or Republicans saying something is 'communist'), I'm talking about X "is going to happen" when it just isn't.

First, you have Trump and now JD Vance insisting that "the left" is going to "impose" new Covid-related "lock downs" in September. This is clearly 100% false, and pretty plainly stupid. But they know that resisting those kinds of measures was something their constituency was energetic about . . . so manufacturer a new concern, tell them a lie that it's happening, and that will get them excited for you. Just as simple as that! Really?




Second example, from last night. After reports of a comment from the White House's expert on alcohol abuse in the US that the US "might consider a recommendation like Canada's to limit beer consumption to two beers a week", which isn't even a US guideline at this point, just a comment. But the federal government has all sorts of diet and health recommendations from how many glasses of water to drink to how to limit consumption of red meat. They're guidance and have no force of law, and everyone knows that. But that doesn't stop Ted Cruz from posting this pure performative video, "they can kiss my arse!" Does he do the same thing about how many vegetables they recommend? Like what?

Ha ha, Trump is using that "lockdown" nonsense as part of his reelection campaign. I'm not going to bother with the number of ways it's idiotic, and anyone who believes it is too far gone as it is.

BTW, who was president when we used lockdowns? Trump of course.

March 15, 2020 States begin to implement shutdowns in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The New York City public school system— the largest school system in the U.S., with 1.1 million students— shuts down, while Ohio calls for restaurants and bars to close.