Isn't Hillary a little old to be President?
- Thread starter EERs 3:16
- Start date
Did you lefties bring up his age then too....oh and let's not forget how Bob Dole's age was an issue too...... You lefties sure do employ a few double standards.
When you take into account that women live longer than men Hillary is younger (in the sense of more expected years left) than Mitt Romney was in 2012.
ETA: Now that I think more, taking sex into account I think Hillary is younger than the GOP nominee in 7 of the last 9 elections, dating back to 1980, with the only ones being younger than her being W in 2000 and 2004.
ETA: Aside from W, going back to 1980 the youngest GOP nominee was GHW Bush in 1988, at age 64. At election time in 2016 Hillary will be 69. And women live on average more than five years longer than men.
ETA: So 7 of the last 9 POTUS elections the GOP has had a nominee age 64 or older. OTOH the last time the Dems had a nominee 64 or older was Harry Truman in 1948 (age 64).
ETA: Now that I think more, taking sex into account I think Hillary is younger than the GOP nominee in 7 of the last 9 elections, dating back to 1980, with the only ones being younger than her being W in 2000 and 2004.
ETA: Aside from W, going back to 1980 the youngest GOP nominee was GHW Bush in 1988, at age 64. At election time in 2016 Hillary will be 69. And women live on average more than five years longer than men.
ETA: So 7 of the last 9 POTUS elections the GOP has had a nominee age 64 or older. OTOH the last time the Dems had a nominee 64 or older was Harry Truman in 1948 (age 64).
Last edited:
You opened that door. Reagan was 69 when he was elected. And Bob Dole never got elected, but it wasn't (only) because of his age. I think age should be a factor ... Reagan already had Alzheimer's by the end of his first term, and Hillary has had issues with her brain as well -- remember the blood clot?
You started out by saying "she is old". I replied with Reagan (age 69 when elected).
Lefties have double standards? Maybe you should pick another topic; you failed at this one. Tell us about how Paul Revere warned the British by ringing bells and shooting guns. LOL.
All partisan thinkers have double standards when it comes to politics. Decisions are made based on emotions rather than logic. It's sort of the same as how most people think their kids are the smartest or the most attractive.
I can't remember a time when I disqualified someone as a candidate for office based solely on age, young or old. I try to be objective and grade them on their merits, or lack of merit, at least as those apply to my political perspectives.
I can't remember a time when I disqualified someone as a candidate for office based solely on age, young or old. I try to be objective and grade them on their merits, or lack of merit, at least as those apply to my political perspectives.
Nobody will be surprised that you missed his point. The knock on Reagan is that he was too old when he ran. Now those same folks have little to say about Hillary's age. That was his point and it apparently went over your head..
Reagan was a man in 1980 and Hillary will be a woman in 2016. Women live a lot longer than men and people in 2016 live longer than people in 1980.
I explained it before. It isn't butthurt. It's more amusement and a bit of pity. I'm not surprised you didn't understand.
The irony of the guy who accuses me of adding nothing to the board defending these responses. But you are butthurt I called you a hypocrite. I wonder why?
I simply pointed out that countrytard missed the point and big brother came to defend him yet again.
The irony is that you missed country's point, and then tried calling him out for missing a point. Which really is your hallmark, but I understand you have an inability to see it.
I don't care that you call me a hypocrite. I've shown each time how it's not true, but you can't understand it. You consistently show a misunderstanding of the word and where and when it's valid.
You try to join conversations where people may not agree but are at least making reasoned responses in defending their positions and the only things you can really add are personal attacks.
You can tell the depth of a person's intellect and ability to reason by how quickly they have to resort to such things. Nearly every time with you it is right out of the gate.
You can tell a lot about a person's intellect by how quickly they resort to telling others what they think and why they think it. Your opinion of me is nothing more than your opinion and I don't care to change it. I am not required to care.
I understood eers2ya's point and why it went over countrytard's head. It is nice of you to have his back because he needs the help.
I never missed anyone's point. The original post claimed Hillary was old and I simply countered with Ronald Reagan (age 69 when elected). I didn't even point out his age and I wasn't on this board when he was elected, therefore I wasn't being hypocritical in pointing out his age back when he was elected or anytime thereafter.
WhiteTail is correct, you are the quickest poster on this board to jump to name calling. It's very immature. You even commented about someone's "fatfvck" brother the other day. Show some class. The main intent of this forum is to exchange THOUGHTS and facts back and forth to support various positions. If I wanted to go to a board where it was constant, mindless name calling, I would create another account and go back to Marshall's TITM.
You might want to wipe the hypocrisy off your face before you get on your high horse and lecture me about how to post.
You missed eer3:16's point. You did.
If you don't like this board, leave.
You attempt to make a connection between Hillary's age and a monkey sticking his finger in his ***. And then you refer to some poster's inability??? This new board is a bit difficult to associate, but you have exceeded the limits.
Umm.
The monkey had nothing to do with Hilary's age, it was in response to Dave saying he liked the smell of butthurt in the morning. That is why that statement was quoted in the post with the video.
Smell. Butt. Monkey smells butt.
See Jane run. Run Jane run.
Am I missing something here?
OP posed the question of whether Hillary was too old to run based on the logic of Dems claims about Reagan and McCain when they ran. The concern obviously being Sarah Palin as 2nd in command.
The logic to refute the question was that Reagan did it as did many other GOP candidates. Essentially saying, our previous claims about age were ******** and we're showing our hypocrisy by acknowledging it not being a true concern.
It was called out as being hypocrisy and then it resorts to name calling and nuh uh type of responses.
Whitetail brought a different approach saying it wasn't a apples to apples comparison and provided logic for why. Of which I happen to agree with. I also agree it's not a valid argument as Republicans have shown.
Bought sum it up?
I don't see any references to Reagan or McCain in the OP. I have no idea what some posters might have said 30 some years ago.
The point isn't how old they are/were per se the point is how much expected life they have left. And a woman at 69 in 2016 has much more expected life than a man at McCain's and Reagan's age in 2008 and 1980.
I have provided no logic to this discussion regarding Hillary's age.
However, I also don't feel it's a valid argument and agree with the original counter to the claim. You can't claim Hillary is too old if you don't think Reagan or any of the others were too old as well. I don't want to sound like I'm supporting Hillary ... God help us there, just pointing out where there might be inconsistencies in logic.
The only logic I provided was to support my views regarding Dave's posts, so I have to direct the credit you are giving to somebody else.
This whole thread turned into a pile of mush.
Eers 3:16 stated that people questioned Reagans age when he ran and something about a double standard if they didnt also question Hillary's age. Personally I could care less about her age or Reagans age. I was merely pointing out that Eers 3:16 had made a valid argument. I was not questioning the point that if Reagan was not too old then hillary is not too old.
Like I said. It is a thread view thread converted to topic view. Nobody can tell who replied to whom.
Eers 3:16 stated that people questioned Reagans age when he ran and something about a double standard if they didnt also question Hillary's age. Personally I could care less about her age or Reagans age. I was merely pointing out that Eers 3:16 had made a valid argument. I was not questioning the point that if Reagan was not too old then hillary is not too old.
Like I said. It is a thread view thread converted to topic view. Nobody can tell who replied to whom.