by Robert M. Traxler
“Your brain is still developing even after society calls you an adult. But it doesn’t last long. Once you hit your late 20s, you start a very slow “cognitive decline.” Web MD
Are Presidents Trump and Biden too old for a second term? As this column has maintained for years, yes.
Folks who post comments to this column have maintained it is fully in support of President Trump “fully MAGA.” This is interesting because I have maintained he is too old for two years now.
People will rationalize the age factor for both presidents, depending on your political persuasion but in my opinion, both are too elderly to serve effectively. We will have a choice of two men past their prime, making the vice president choices critical.
Both parties will stringently maintain that they will pick the person best to assume the presidency on day one, but neither will use that as the genuine requirement; a person who helps get them elected is the real requirement.
We know that the socialist party will choose our current vice president; what the conservative party will do is an open question. The socialists will not offend the minority folks by going against a triple minority in Vice President Kamala Harris. The conservative party is not so concerned with political correctness but will probably go with a multiple minority, like Mr. Vivek Ramaswamy. An Indian, Hindu or a woman, preferably of some color other than white like Gov. Nicky Haley, also a double minority.
A sexual orientation other than hetero is a plus for either party. Just why we care about the proper boxes being checked rather than the competency of the person goes to our nation’s extreme level of white guilt.
We are quick to call folks names for being politically incorrect, folks who dare question the tenants of the sacred mantras of “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” (DEI), and both parties will follow DEI in a vice presidential choice to avoid being labeled.
We have a long history of not liking our vice presidents. During my three quarters of a decade every vice president from Alben Barkley to Kamala Harris have been vilified, to include the five who became president. Not one was called competent and effective while in the office of the vice presidency.
To support the importance of the vice job for either man, we need to look at the insurance actuary tables; life expectancy decreases and likelihood of a serious medical condition increase as time passes. As we age, we lose a step physically and cognitively, no doubt about it, and the rate increases every year.
The biased media will downplay the impact of age depending on party; MSNBC has attacked President Trump’s age and cognitive ability, while celebrating President Biden’s age and corresponding intelligence and wisdom. Again, it depends on your political persuasion. Fox News has attacked President Biden’s age and cognitive decline.
President Biden’s two brain surgeries have had an impact on brain function and tend to speed cognitive decline. Doctors cannot fish around in your brain without an impact as you grow older.
If you view media outlets other than the few conservative outlets, you do not see President Biden falling and speaking gibberish, talking to people in the audience who had passed away and referring to the leader of nations he is visiting by the wrong names and countries.
It is normal for people to misspeak, and it increases as we age, but it is never a good thing when our president does it. It could have disastrous results, like when President Biden said, “I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades (Ukraine). And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and then we end up having a fight about what to do and not do.”
This statement signaled disunity and a lack of resolve among NATO nations and emboldened Vladimir Putin, who invaded shortly after. We must think our president saying such a dangerous thing was a gaffe, but words matter, even a gaffe.
To be fair, former President Trump has also committed gaffes. Both men are past their prime.
So, the office of vice president becomes more important ever day as we enter the election cycle or the silly season. Political correctness will ensure that Vice President Haris is on the ticket, and whom President Trump chooses will be enlightening.
The question is, will the conservative party go with the DEI choice? The media would love to see a gay, trans, Muslim, African American, felon, former drug addicted, left-handed person whose parents are illegal immigrants from Venezuela. That person could be fully qualified, but as a running mate for Trump, most media would refer to them as a racist, sexist, homophobe, Islamophobic, bigoted black face of white supremacy and an idiot. My opinion.
Army Bob, We have to agree to disagree.
I love ya Bob, but to put Trump in the same cognitive category as Joey Biden is ludicrous. Biden not only forgets names and situations but shits his pants (remember the Vatican incident?), falls up stairs, and can’t handle a bicycle. He also can’t manage his way offstage without help! If Trump displayed the same frailties as Biden, he would have been a convicted impeached president.
We have a huge problem but it is not on the Republican side.
Bass Man,
Thank you for the comment. Head-to-head President Trump beats President Biden in cognitive ability no question. I do feel that both have passed their prime. Thanks again for the comment, good luck with the fishing.
Hahaha what a joke, I think you mean DTOM not BM
“During my three quarters of a decade …”
I’m guessing century, but it proves your point. I agree that both should step aside for another candidate, but neither are likely to exit graciously.
Mr. Martin
Jim, my error you are correct.
It is worthy of addition, that as individuals get on in age, they tend to become more sure of themselves. They often become less open to understanding or acknowledging the changing world around them. Old age tends to entrench learned belief systems(whether right or wrong), and increase the tendency to be more nostalgic of the past. The inflexibility to create new neuronal pathways(and the erosion of existing ones) leads to an inability to adapt to and compromise with, reality. This may explain the way that some become more bigoted as they move on in years, often in people who weren’t before.
A minimum age limit exists for the commanding office, it would seem logical that a maximum cutoff should apply as well. For example, a law exists that forces retirement of professional airline pilots at age 65. They can still fly, with increased medical scrutiny, just no longer for hire with paid passengers. This seems like a reasonable line in the sand. I would argue this standard is appropriate for congressional and supreme court members also.
Alas, logic or reason do not have a place currently in our political battlefield. With the “Me Generation” in full effect -individual desire, personal gain, outright hubris, and familial enrichment supersede “the greater good”. Lip service, team player mechanisms, and blatant fear driven propaganda belie the real motives and actions. It is tragic the way that both major parties have allowed the extremist views from both unrealistic ends to become their guiding and motivating forces.
Aside from all this, we are still left with the decision of choosing between the “lesser of two evils”. It is glaringly apparent to me which side continues to stand for inaction, regression, exclusion, racial and gender superiority, labeling(name calling or intentional miss-labeling), and outright disregard for and even desire to eliminate, their fellow humans and planet. If you step back and take the time to process and reflect on what is actually behind the communication, it becomes self evident.
Mr Baloney,
Your words, “Alas, logic or reason have no place in our political battlefield”. I agree wholeheartedly. Politicians should guide our country but stay out of technology.
Example: Electric Vehicles
The huge amount of rare earth minerals needed for EV’s takes more energy to excavate and process into useful, rechargeable batteries. They are three times as heavy as normal vehicles. The charging stations are too few to supply what is needed, the range of operation is not close to a gasoline/diesel engine vehicle, and the electricity comes from fossil fuel or atomic power plants. The cold atmosphere performance of these vehicles is very poor and cold affects the recharging capabilities. The pressure put on the electrical grid is enormous. Why was this forced upon the buying public… politicians.
Clearly, this was a Democrat initiative.
If EV’s were better than fuel vehicles don’t you think manufacturers and investors would be all in? This is an example where the proverbial cart was before the horse.
Politicians, stay out of technology until research and controlled experiments PROVE the efficiency and effectively is determined.
Howdy BM, I hope you are well.
A little off topic, but I am able to go down this path as well. At first glance, I can agree with a bit of these assertions on the surface. Some of the points -on their own are entirely true. However, when I actually get into the underlying logic of the argument you make, it falls flat, and I must disagree. I have a hard time seeing the crux of these common talking points as anything but -the technology is not perfect in every way, a detriment still exists, therefore screw it, lets just give up and let the world burn. I would like to be wrong on this interpretation, I’m just unable to see any other endpoint in the logic.
With regard to politicians staying out of technology, while a warm and fuzzy ideal, this blatantly ignores the history and mastery that this country has accomplished in this realm. If it were not for “government interference in technology” we would not have the programs that funded, accelerated, and spearheaded the nearly innumerable technological advancements of the past century plus. This is especially true when it comes to the tech that has provided an edge on historical and current war fronts, creating our world dominance. This has allowed us to continue in advancing amazing and affordable tech for everyday life.
The system we have is cyclical and exponentially self accelerating. We certainly would not have been first on the moon, first with nuclear weapons nor gained the dominant advantage we enjoy in the “tech industry”. I could go on nearly endlessly with examples, this mechanism has undoubtedly pushed boundaries on every front imaginable. Is it a perfect system, of course not, a lot of inefficiencies, pitfalls, and shortcomings exist, mainly due to human factors and unchecked corporate greed. I do believe it is far above any other out there, and it is essentially our “superpower” if you will.
The irony of this ignorant stance, is that it blindly ignores the level of government subsidy or corporate welfare that props up the petroleum industry. I understand that oil is not commonly viewed as “tech”. However, it is obvious that locating, obtaining, transporting, and “protecting the flow” are all forms of technology. The amount of tax dollars that prop up this industry in order to keep the relative price at the pump effectively a quarter of what other nations consumers and companies pay is staggering. This is aside from the amount of blood and treasure spent over many decades on these obtainment objectives.
I know-I know, the argument that follows is that “we just need to drill baby, and use our own -we have enough”. This is where it gets a bit strategic, the logic behind this globally tactical decision is not commonly discussed. My understanding is it comes down to resource protection. The theory is(and has been proven throughout recorded history with things like salt, steel, and land) that it is crucial to “use up” the opponent’s resources first, while protecting and reserving what you have in store. A belief exists regarding a nearly endless supply, this is far from reality and unreasonably foolhardy.
Are the current production EVs ideal? Certainly not, they are part of a trailblazing process. The advancements that have been, and continue to be made are revolutionary and will continue to accelerate on the specific vehicular, energy infrastructure, and production fronts(much more than fossil fuel or nuclear power exists as sources by the way). What has been pushed primarily so far, have been vehicles marketed to the “more money than brains club” as Jay Leno calls it. They are chock full of features and comforts that the wealthy desire. This has allowed these power-train systems to be tested and developed in real world environments while taking advantage of what is in effect a subsidy from the rich. This is in addition to the actual government subsidies, which I do not “like” either, although I do understand the purpose is our standing in the likely future reality. The efficiency equation is certainly not there yet, however the battery, control, and structure tech are advancing much faster than the normal auto industry design and production cycle can accommodate. If you will excuse the pun, the battery mass reductions on the horizon are shocking.
If electricity is the wrong method of energy consumption and portation, why do we use it in so many other everyday items? Most everyone understands why we use batteries in cordless drills, laptops, and countless other portable items. The efficiency advancements in cordless tools have been undeniable, to the point most auto techs have given up their air hose in favor of batteries for most uses. It would be silly, and dangerous(though novel) to have to fire up a small combustion engine in order to use something like a phone, drill, or laptop. I believe the day is dawning where we will see the gasoline engine as an ignorant method for normal daily transportation. The same way we now view the use of a horse as time consuming, costly, and hazardous -nostalgic and fun for sure, but no longer practical for common use.
The average daily range of most folks is well under 50 miles all in, this is far below current range capabilities. I think a flaw in common logic is that it must be either or, rather than both depending on use case. I believe the reality that will come about sooner than we think is that realistic, less extravagant, practical EVs will become commonplace for most everyday commuting and errand running. The long distance trip that occurs at most a couple times a year by average people will be done with a gas powered rental. The all day long road warrior fleet vehicles will still be gas for some time. The overuse of full size 4×4, ego stroking, rapidly depreciating, maintenance cost sucking, pickup trucks to make beer runs while providing the mental security blanket to be “ready for anything” yet never actually going anywhere but down the road will fall out of fashion in my view. Especially if we have to pay anything near the real cost at the pump in the future. Understanding, acceptance, and compromise are not detrimental, they are the ways in which we became great.
The real issue as I see it is the level at which the GOP is bought and paid for by the petroleum industry lobbyists. They are far and above their largest contributors, and in turn own and control them and the core of any messaging. It is telling that absolutely no real idea, productive method, or attainable advancement on any front is acceptable let alone put forth by them. They have no objective or tactic other than foot stomping temper tantrums akin to a spoiled child. I could get into the disregard for this planet that stems from the ideology of Christian Zionism, with their belief that Israel needs to be in a major war, in order to bring about the messiah which will supposedly elevate them to a better place, away from this wicked world. But, that is also a bit off topic and better left for another time.
I (and likely most others) have no intent of treading on you sir. The reality is that if you lay down on the path, and foolishly place yourself underfoot of people on the move, you may get trampled on, even if it is unintended.
Thank you for the exasperating epiphany. Most interesting, but half baked.
I would buy an electric vehicle if I could travel the way I do now. 400-500 miles between fill-ups that take 5 minutes to refill and back on the highway. Pulling a trailer and not stopping for hours to recharge, operating in all environmental conditions and not worrying about running out of power.
The only reason this halfbaked idea was pushed is because Biden and gang deemed it so and the automakers bowed to the pressure.. even they have backed out of their commitment to all electric because of poor consumer demand.
I have no illusions that electric vehicles aren’t a good idea, they were invented before the internal combustion engine if memory serves me correctly. But only if the market and the product mesh together. The government pushing technology in consumer products to meet a preconceived bogeyman (CO2) to bend to the Green Weenies is not the way to sell product.
The EV’s must measure up to fuel based vehicles in all ways. They presently do not.
End of story.
Ok BM,
In your first reply, you excluded a key word, and changed the wording in your attempt to quote me.
In the last reply you must have completely missed both of my main points. I understand, it was a bit lengthy so I will try and simplify and bring it to your level.
I think you need to review the history of how our technological development system works with and depends on partnership with government.
My other main point was that EVs are not for every application, but they will continue to become a primary mode of transportation for everyday, common use.
You can stick your fingers in your ears, or head in the sand all you like, you can even omit facts and state things that are incorrect.
It just won’t make it so, reality will still be what it is.
Interesting that Army Bob describes the two differing philosophies as belonging to the “conservative’ mindset and that of the ‘socialist’ bent.
Go ahead, AB, but let’s be honest; if by your definition those with a progressive or liberal philosophy can be described by you as ‘socialist’, then the conservative folks MUST be described as ‘fascists’.