Guys, there's a solution that we haven't considered.

You cannot will away reality. No amount of willful ignorance will make undecided people vote for Biden.

But looking at Trump's plans will.
- You're assuming people are going to do that well, or at all.
  
  You got a point there.
- Why would the quality of his opponent make me vote for a corpse? Biden isnt going to be cognizant enough to serve his term, if hes even alive. And certainly no president at all is worse than trump
  
  Because the "quality" of his opponent is that he'll convert the US in a theocratic dictatorship?
  Not my words, his words with that insane project 2025 plan. Basically from those two, you can extract the following points: If you like democracies and still want to be able to vote in 2028, don't vote trump. If you're a woman and want to have any rights whatsoever left, you will not want to vote trump. If you're a woman and dont want to die of treatable complications with pregnancy, don't vote trump. If you like sex (huuuhhh) then don't vote trump. If you like workers rights, dislike discrimination of any kind, don't vote trump. If you're LGBT, don't vote trump. If you don't have a nice white skin color, don't vote Trump. If you like the environment and dont want to die from climate change, air pollution or whatever, then don't vote trump
- Sure, that's not the point though. If someone is opposed to voting for Biden because of his age then ignoring the problem will not make them magically more inclined to vote for Biden.
  If we're fighting for our future then we should have the best candidate,, not the default option.
And so they'll vote for a guy who said multiple times he'll turn the US into a dictatorship? The guy who has project 2025 for his policies to make it a theocratic dictatorship?
Yeah Biden is demented and senile but at this point I'd prefer a soft boiled egg over trump.
- To be fair, Biden is not demented. He is showing signs of senility though. Which is why he should step down and allow any well functioning Democrat to take his place. Because if undecided voters considered anything Trump said to be a disqualifying statement, they would not be undecided. And polling in Pennsylvania, they state Democrats really really need to win the Electoral College, is going the wrong way. There's a moment in every presidential campaign season where the polling trend lines diverge and do not come back together. It's usually when the independents/undecideds break for one candidate or another.
  But it's also seen when a candidate has a structural issue they cannot fix, or cannot fix in time. Swiftboating for Kerry, Palin as VP for McCain, Binders full of Women for Romney. And now that debate in June for Biden. He's had the scandal recovery period and he hasn't patched it up, instead it's just getting worse. So yes. You cannot let the echo chamber keep you all fuzzy and warm. We don't have to repeat 2016, it's not too late.

Yes, Caligula's horse would be a preferable vote to cast over Trump.

That doesn't mean a wise opposition to Trump would choose to run Caligula's horse.

The question of "who to vote against in the general election" and "who is the best candidate to put forward as nominee in the general election" are very different questions.

President should not be older than 65, period.

Why 65 specifically? Why not 64 or 66?

Why not 69?
- Nice
65 is supposed to be the age of retiremenr for a normal career
- 65 is supposed to be the age of retiremenr for a normal career
  "Supposed to"
  In Washington DC it's 67. In Virginia it's 61. In 1991 it was 57. It's based on arbitrary convention, not for any medical reason.
  
  Well, that should be standardized then, and 65 seems like a nice median
  
  Well, that should be standardized then, and 65 seems like a nice median
  Based on what?
  I've known high energy 80 year olds who were sharp as a tack and 50 year olds with early onset dementia or who were just plain nuts to begin with.
  This isn't about age.
  
  Well a law is a hell of a lot harder to enforce if it's not drawing a line somewhere in the sand, and I'd rather disqualify someone we should than qualify someone we shouldn't
  
  Perfectly happy to draw a line in the sand, it should just be based on what we care about - competence, intelligence, experience, not being a raging psychopath... that kind of thing. Saying 65 is too old is no better than saying 35 is too young.
  
  I like all of those things. Can we draw the sand line now?
  
  Youre entirely right. How exactly will you enforce a law that says "unless youre still sharp as a tack at 80", though? There has to be a provable line or else the law is meaningless.
  
  All candidates for elected office should undergo standardized cognitive and psychological testing. The latter should include things like personality and bipolor disorder tests and some kind of personality test if there even one that is roughly valid (I don't know). These tests should not bar anyone from office necessarily but the results should be made public so voters can assess for themselves. These tests should be completed immediately after the candidate files to run.
65 is a typical pension age. We could make it 60 too, really
- Pension... LOL.
  
  Lol because...?
Why not 33?

A) Biden is going to lose to trump. B) The only chance we have to have a living president thats not trump is to nominate someone else. Anybody sane has already written off biden as dead. I guarantee you the entire white house staff has.

Do you think trump wont be around in 4 years?

Trumps health really isn't better than Biden. Save for mental state (where he isn't very far behind biden) Trump is in a much worse state, physically, than Biden. There is a good chance both of them aren't around anymore 4 years from now

So you’re okay with attempting to elect a demented old man? When democracy is on the line? That’s crazy.

He could be replaced. If only we were allowed to have that conversation…………………………………………………..

How about YOU shut up and let us have the conversation. Your way gets Trump elected. We are trying to save America here.

Save America by making people too apathetic to vote for the only thing that could save America?
- ... ... ... ... ... ...!!!
I'm saying that if he doesn't want to step down, you don't have the option. Yes, he should have never pushed himself for reelection, he should never gone in 2020 even. But here we are, and you WILL get the option: Trump or Biden. Yes, it's chosing between a turd and a shitshow, but I'll take a turd over a shitshow any day.
It's ultimately Biden's decision. If he doesn't want out, he has the power to dig in and make it difficult.
- This is a democracy bro, we dont have kings. If you and biden want a monarchy, go turn traitor and join the red coats. Here in america, Biden doesnt get to be ruler just because he says he is.

Whataboutism

Whataboutism only applies as a logical fallacy when used to avoid defense of the original accusation.
There is no avoidance here, they fully agree that Biden is old etc. etc.
Whataboutism does not apply.
- No he's right. Shouting about Trump as a deflection from valid criticism of Biden is a classic whataboutism.
  
  Comparing two candidates for a position is not a logical fallacy.
  Using whataboutism to deflect from the criticisms of one is.
  Again, criticism was acknowledged.
  
  And then discarded with a whataboutism.
  
  ~~Can you go into detail? What's the criticism that you think is being deflected?~~
  EDIT: nah, I'm just going to stick with my initial assertion. Comparing two candidates for a position is not a logical fallacy. Do you agree?
  
  If that was the conversation then yes. But when the conversation is about party A fucking up then bringing party B into it is whataboutism. It's the literal definition of a whataboutism.
  
  The meme is about Jimmy Carter running as a candidate for election.... The conversation is clearly about an election in which we are comparing candidates for an election.
  This isn't "Joe Biden makes a goddamn awful margarita.", in which "Well putin makes a worse one" would be a whataboutism, this is "Joe Biden is too old to run as a candidate in the election". And in an election, you compare candidates, which is not a logical fallacy.
  
  And we're talking about Jimmy Carter because we're talking about replacing Biden. Telling people to shut up, Trump is worse, is a counter accusation without basis in that context.
  
  Ah, so the idea is that candidates for the position are not yet locked in, therefore comparison between party candidates is not valid. I can get behind that.
  However in the current environment I don't see many other paths forward. I think the best alternative I've seen was an article floating al franken. My guess is the original commenters worry is that without viable alternatives, it will likely become a Biden vs trump election, and by then we've provided ourselves with enough negativity against Biden to encourage a trump victory. I'd like to see more positive qualities of alternatives be brought up, instead of negatives about the current most likely nominee.
  
  No. It's a complete misunderstanding of whataboutism.
  Whataboutism is when you point to another similar situation and say "what about that".
  Examples....
  A non-whataboutism - Biden is old, but we absolutely cannot have trump, a self proclaimed wannabe dictator, become president.
  A whataboutism - Biden is old. Yeah, but trump is old too!
  
  There is nowhere that defines whataboutism with that restriction. You guys are so deep in the sand you're pulling out literal propaganda techniques to manufacture consent.
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
  Here try this^^
  Or just google "what is a whataboutism" and take your pick.
  Basically, take the argument against you, and accuse your opposition, or someone else of the same thing.
  
  The wiki article does not support what you're saying. It even suggests 2 other methods, accusations of double standards, and hypocrisy. The main point is to distract from the actual conversation by using an accusation.
  Actually try reading your sources.
  
  Common accusations include double standards, and hypocrisy, but it can also be used to relativize criticism of one's own viewpoints or behaviors. (A: "Long-term unemployment often means poverty in Germany." B: "And what about the starving in Africa and Asia?").
  Might as well quote the relevant section.
  Well would you look at that, there it is laying out exactly what I said. Deflection of an argument by accusing someone else of the same thing.
  Stating that you're voting for Biden because Trump is a Fascist wannabe dictator is not a whataboutism.
  
  For comparison, what you said was,
  Whataboutism is when you point to another similar situation and say "what about that".
  You presented that as the only valid use of the technique. Even the section you just quoted says there are other ways to use it. That's why there's the words, "but can also be used to..."
  Stop digging your hole.
  
  What the fuck do you think "relativize criticism" means?
  Whataboutism is a specific type of logical fallacy. It is not enough for it to just be a deflection to another topic
  For instance... Biden is old. Yeah, but Trump golfs too much and he cheats at it.
  That is not a whataboutism.