In a word, no. :rolleyes:
He wants to transform our energy system to 100% renewable energy. You don’t honestly think he’s going to get rid of nuclear power without some working alternative in place?
How do you imagine he will make climate change worse? Have you seen this?
He’s 77, a year older than Biden and 4 years older than Trump.
How old is your Mom?
It doesn’t matter how old his mother is, 77 is frigging old.
My mom was born earlier in 1941, so she has already turned 78.
But Bernie doesn’t get to stay the same age as he is now throughout his presidency, so my point stands. He would turn 87 in the last year of his presidency.
No need to give him two terms just yet but he will be over 80 during his first term. Generally we’re happy when an 80+ old relative is still living independently. I’m not sure many would be happy he’s running the country.
Agreed, but we also should not be running anyone who can’t stand for reelection.
ETA: Let’s note for absolute clarity that Bernie would actually turn 80 in the first year of his presidency. That’s insane.
My wife and I were at the State Fair yesterday when Bernie showed up. FWIW, he is not a particularly dynamic speaker (he spoke mostly about climate change), but there was a large crowd.
He kept saying we should listen to the science, and nobody asked him about listening to the science on nuclear energy and GMOs.
Overall, meh.
Regards,
Shodan
Why? Other than ageism. Is he sick? Senile?
Now? Don’t know. In a couple of years? Yes, probably. Is he past his prime? Of course he is. What 80-year-old isn’t?
This isn’t ageism. It’s actuarial science.
Which depends on averages, not individuals. It’s totally worthless for a individual.
It’s really not. For a 70 or 75 year old, okay. Not for an 87 year old. There has never been someone that old who is truly up to the 24/7 job of being president. And the two oldest presidents we have had (Trump and Reagan) were/are not my idea of mentally sharp, to say the least.
Reagan was fine his first term. Ok, 2nd term- *not so much.
*
But medicine has advanced since then.
Warren Buffett is 88! and still sharp.
QE2 is 93 and still sharp and in pretty good health:
https://www.cheatsheet.com/entertainment/is-queen-elizabeth-ii-in-good-health.html/
None of them are commanders-in-chief of the world’s largest military and head of the executive branch of the worlds largest economy and 300-odd million people. They don’t get woken up at 3 a.m. having to make split second life-or-death decisions that affect thousands or millions of people.
Umm, the Queen is the Commander of the British Armed forces, in theory, and Buffet heads a huge conglomerate of companies that makes him the 3rd richest person in the world.
So, your point is invalid.
Neither of them have to be awoken in the middle of the night to make split-second life or death decisions. So your point is invalid in practice, whatever the case “in theory”.
I am unable to vote for anyone in their seventies.
“Old” is the Republican brand, not the Democrat brand. The Democrats have always been the “young” party, which is why only young Democrats win elections.
Say you’re an owner of an NFL team. Would you sign a 40-year-old quarterback for an 8-year contract?
Umm, the President is the Commander in Chief of the US Armed forces, in reality.
In theory, reality and theory are the same. In reality, they aren’t.
And Buffet could drop dead today, or completely lose his faculties over the next few months, and the only reasonable response would be “Yeah, well he’s 88, and those things happen when you’re that old.”
The truth is that while some people retain their vigor well into their 80’s, you never really know who that is going to be in advance, and the best you can say about a fellow as old as Buffet is that he hasn’t lost it yet.
He has slipped in his advancing years, that’s for sure.
Not as crazy as the current person with senile dementia in the WH.