[Atlantis]

Sanders running against Trump would be like Corbyn running against Johnson. It would be a guaranteed victory for Trump.

[Godstud]

Signs Of Trump’s Dementia Are Clear As Day, Psychologist Warns
https://trofire.com/2019/04/14/signs-of ... ist-warns/

[Finfinder]

Good chance Sanders doesn't even win Iowa. Its rigged against him anyway.

Here is a great link at to how it works.. My contention is if you support another candidate Biden or Bootyjudge you are not automatically in support of Sanders. You could have the Warren/Bloomburg supporters throw their votes to Biden. Wasn't it supposedly a coin flip last time around wink wink. Hillary won.
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2 ... they-work/

[Big Steve-3]

Signs Of Trump’s Dementia Are Clear As Day, Psychologist Warns
https://trofire.com/2019/04/14/signs-of ... ist-warns/

What do you say we just mark that down as a big "FAIL" for you, hmm?

A psychologist isn't a medical doctor and, as such, is not in a position to make a medical diagnosis of someone; certainly not someone they've never even met. I'm sure that, if I were inclined to spend the time on it, I could find something written by a psychologist which states Trump is fine.

But there's no need for that because without an actual diagnosis, it's not possible to offer an informed, intelligent opinion that the man is definitely suffering dementia. He may just be tired.

Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden spend far more time slurring their speech and getting confused. Perhaps they should be looked at?

[Godstud]

You're a Trump fan-boy. I doubt there is any evidence I could present, that you would accept, @Indy.

[Big Steve-3]

You're a Trump fan-boy. I doubt there is any evidence I could present, that you would accept, @Indy.

And why would you assume I'm a "Trump fan-boy"? Because I voted for him? Because I won't repeat everything the left would like me to repeat? Because I'm not a good little Never-Trumper like you?

I have my criticisms of him. When the appropriate topics come up, I will vice those opinions.

Honestly, calling me a "fan boy" just shows how little you know about me. Thinking you know anything about me is unwise. You would look far more reasonable if you'd simply admit that you have nothing substantive to offer. Offering up uneducated opinions and calling me a fan boy doesn't make your case very strong.

And I'll apologize for grinding your silly post into the mud with my boot heel, but it was warranted. A psychologist's opinion of Trump's medical condition only carries weight with those who are so desperate to find more things about him to hate. Otherwise, it's meaningless.

[Godstud]

You just made the assumption that I am some sort of "Never-Trumper", so you can put your big talk about not judging people in your pipe, and smoke it.

I hear about people like you who say they have criticisms of Trump, but you know what? I have yet to see a single one of you disagree with anything he says, or does. I guess you'll have to forgive me for not believing that BS.

Anything negative about Trump is "meaningless", isn't it?

[Big Steve-3]

You just made the assumption that I am some sort of "Never-Trumper", so you can put your big talk about not judging people in your pipe, and smoke it.

Well, since you saw fit to start painting with a broad brush, I decided to just follow your lead.

Why would you possibly have a problem with that?

I hear about people like you who say they have criticisms of Trump, but you know what? I have yet to see a single one of you disagree with anything he says, or does. I guess you'll have to forgive me for not believing that BS.

I believe I've already voiced some on this forum. Grab a cup of coffee, kick your feet up and go find them. I haven't been here too long. They should be easy to find.

Anything negative about Trump is "meaningless", isn't it?

It's not that the psychologist's opinion was meaningless, it's that it was ignorant and stupid. That psychologist is in no position to make a medical diagnosis of anyone, much less President Trump. Your willingness to make it the supporting basis for your argument merely shows that you're either really not very good at this or you have no idea who is and isn't qualified to make a medical diagnosis.

[Verv]

Thanks for all the feedback, particularly from Blackjack.

https://twitter.com/davidsirota/status/1222161627052527618

The guy actually marshaled some arguments based on recent data showing that the woke left isn't actually the section of the Democrats gaining seats in Congress. This feat is being accomplished by moderates.

Sure, you can hate this reality, but simply saying that this guy has no credibility after he makes an argument with objective data in it is not persuasive.

Perhaps one aspect that neither Chait nor I expanded upon is that moderates can peal away votes from Pres. Trump. Pres. Trump is viewed as a bull in a China shop, perhaps corrupt, somoene who is a divider and not a uniter...

How hard would it be to run someone who hugs the center, has some appeal to Republicans, and is not damaged goods?

Running someone who actually pushes some of the center towards Trump is foolish, IMO.

[AFAIK]

I'm not going to do your legwork for you, AFAIK.

If you believe you have a valid point to make, make it. But if you fail to make it, it's silly to expect someone else to make it for you.

I made my point very clearly. Just because you're unwilling to follow basic logic or google something to relieve your own ignorance doesn't mean I have to hold your hand and walk you through it. If the results can be found on the front page of Google there's no need for me to show it to you since it's not a controversial claim and life expectancy at birth being different than life expectancy at 75 is self evidently going to be different since they're different things.

[Godstud]

Age is not relevant if the people running are mentally fit. They aren't expected to have to arm wrestle leaders of foreign countries, or do Trial by Combat.

Life expectancy is an AVERAGE, and not relevant when dealing with the sector of the population that gets the very best healthcare, in the USA.

See below:
Life expectancy gap between rich and poor US regions is 'more than 20 years'
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/ ... n-20-years

[Patrickov]

Age is not relevant if the people running are mentally fit. They aren't expected to have to arm wrestle leaders of foreign countries, or do Trial by Combat.

Please do not exaggerate matters.

I just think it is necessary to have some backup plan if a candidate of considerable age wins nomination. Consider how righteous some people think this candidate is, it is very important to maximise the chance that his policies can be continued even when his time has come.

Even the most robust human beings can end their life rapidly (NOT due to accidents like Kobe Bryant of course) in old age.

[Godstud]

There is a backup plan. It's called a Vice President.

[Patrickov]

There is a backup plan. It's called a Vice President.

Correct. Since it's mentioned in #15062496 I didn't repeat explicitly, but this is exactly what I mean.

[Patrickov]

Running someone who actually pushes some of the center towards Trump is foolish, IMO.

It depends on how Trump and his aides' action affect the situation. Moderates might also find Trump's policies hugging too hard to the hawks.

[Big Steve-3]

Age is not relevant if the people running are mentally fit. They aren't expected to have to arm wrestle leaders of foreign countries, or do Trial by Combat.

And no one ever made such a stupid claim.

But physically, things start to go south as you get older. You act as tough great health care will mean a person never has a heart attack. Well, here's a news flash for you, GS: Bernie Sanders has pretty good health care, and he had a heart attack!

To say that age isn't a factor as long as one is mentally fit is, at best, tragically myopic.

[Godstud]

My father had a heart attack in 1988. He lived until 2014.
The rich in the USA(and Bernie is rich) have access to great healthcare, and Sanders might still live another 15 years. Who are you to guess when he might die?

Trump could die of a coronary tomorrow. He might live to see 100. The "what if" arguments are BS.

It's not myopic. It's realistic. No one can see the future, so it's best not to pretend that you can, as you are doing.

[Heisenberg]

The guy actually marshaled some arguments based on recent data showing that the woke left isn't actually the section of the Democrats gaining seats in Congress. This feat is being accomplished by moderates.

The point about the midterms, while factually correct in the sense that "moderate" Democrats flipped seats and more left-wing Democrats didn't, isn't particularly relevant to a presidential election. Midterm elections are notorious for having much lower turnout and a much older, more conservative electorate than presidential elections. Candidates also don't have the same degree of backing from the "party machine" as they do in a presidential election either.

As for the article itself, I fail to see how it's "fabulous", except to centrists and right-wingers looking to confirm their own biases. The whole argument is that Sanders is uniquely risky as a candidate. If that were the case, Chait should demonstrate why his "baggage" is worse than other candidates. Sanders' alleged corruption is small fry compared to the Hunter Biden stuff, for example, and Joe Biden's obvious senility would be ruthlessly exploited by the Republicans in a general election campaign. As for Buttigieg, the guy is a robot and very easily (and let's face it, correctly) painted as a smarmy college boy who is precocious far beyond the age at which it stopped being cute. Warren, too, is very easily attacked with the "Pocahontas" stuff and is pretty easy to paint as shrill/lecturing.

The piece also fails to note that Sanders polls the best against Trump in both key swing states and overall polling - which just highlights that Chait is not arguing in good faith. If he was so certain of his position he should at least address that.

The comparison with Corbyn, while having some merit, is overstated: there is no Brexit-like issue to divide Democrats in the US; no real equivalent of the Liberal Democrats to vote for instead (barring a last minute third party run by Bloomberg, which we probably shouldn't count out); he is much more competent when it comes to campaigning and messaging; and his personal favourability ratings are much higher than Corbyn's.

What I do like about the article though is how neatly it demonstrates a point I've made repeatedly in political arguments IRL: "Vote Blue No Matter Who" is a demand that is only ever made in one direction. These centrist ghouls are always whining about how attacking a front runner is "doing Putin's bidding" or "dividing the party" until the frontrunner is a left winger. Then, they can't wait to cry about how their consciences won't let them vote for the nominee.

[Big Steve-3]

My father had a heart attack in 1988. He lived until 2014.

How old was your father when he had his heart attack?

My best friend had a heart attack while onstage with his band. He was 33 years old. Now he's the healthiest guy I know, and he'll be 58 in May.

Conversely, a person who suffers a heart attack at an advanced age are far more likely to have a second, and often more severe, heart attack.

Who are you to guess when he might die?

Given the fact that he's already had a heart attack at an advanced age, and given the fact that POTUS is just about the most stressful job on the planet, I'd say the odds he has another heart attack are reasonable. Just watch, if he wins the election, Vegas is gonna' go nuts.

Trump could die of a coronary tomorrow. He might live to see 100. The "what if" arguments are BS.

Are you seriously making the argument that a person's health is of no concern for someone who is President?

It's not myopic. It's realistic. No one can see the future, so it's best not to pretend that you can, as you are doing.

Well, reading what you and your fellow liberals write here on a daily basis, I'd say that foretelling the future is standard fare around here.

[Heisenberg]

Are you seriously making the argument that a person's health is of no concern for someone who is President?

You guys literally worship a hypertensive, obese 73-year old fast food addict who refuses to exercise and is suffering early stage dementia. Forgive me if I don't think your "concerns" about a candidate's health are real.