More to the point, what ought to be a question that should have an obvious and easily-agreed-to answer, is exaggerated to a needless degree and mutated into a partisan issue year after year.
*cough*insistingonfightingeverywherebutcontinentalEuropefortwoyearstocontroltheSuezCanalwhiletheSovietsfoughtandwonthewar*cough*
I mean, everything is.
Oh, I totally think Biden merits careful scrutiny, too. He doesn't appear to be firing on all cylinders.
Its funny. Rooseveld didn't want, like or respect Truman and apparently did very little to prepare him but it still ended up an extremely lucky shot. By most accounts Truman is listed as one of the more successful presidents.
Our country was very fortunate to get a more down to earth person as the president in that time.
I mean Mainstream media weren't talking about Hillary being ill while less mainstream sources were suggesting something was wrong up to 2 weeks before hand. Hell even when she collapsed it was being passed off as nothing / heatstroke initially too.
Less mainstream ones were suggesting she would be dead within a week. So you will forgive me if I call them totally bullshit and ignore everything they say.
If you wanted someone younger then you should have gotten more of the younguns to go out and vote for them. But, young people don't vote, old people do.
Who would that younger candidate be? Sanders, who was overwhelmingly supported by young electorate, is himself ancient, and even that support wasn't enough to push him to the top, as you like to point out. All the top candidates in this race were over 70.
That can be be said about literally any piece of tabloid punditry being published out there. Those that aren't outright lies that is.
For most disabilities, it wouldn't matter. Being wheelchair-bound (for instance) doesn't stop a president doing the important parts of his job.
Yes, and that's exactly what I mean. mere ageing I wouldn't count: voters should implicitly understand that a candidate of advanced years is not going to be at their peak. But a disorder which can involve very significant deterioration during the course of a term of office is a different matter.
If by successful you mean inheriting leadership of one of the only economies not razed to the ground at war's end, still nearly managing to screw that up by proceeding with the Morgenthau plan before letting rational adults make policy decisions, stacking the cabinet and alphabet agencies with war profiteers and Nazi sympathizers (not that those are exclusive to one another), boldly setting the course of history by launching a half-century-long pointless cold war...sure, I guess. That's not to say he didn't have good policy proposals, the Fair Deal for one, but once again southern Democrats proved themselves beyond doubt the biggest pricks in the country.
In the old forums Agema and I had a brief but really interesting conversation about this, and parallels to the Soviet Union in the '80s. Namely, that in the case of the Soviet Union, it's ossified and ailing gerontocracy heralded its own failure, leaving the question open as to whether the United States may suffer a similar fate along the same time frame. The only problem being, the US doesn't have an ace in the hole the way the USSR did in the '80s (Siberian fossil fuels).
Truman never approved the Morgenthau plan though. Gonna need a citation of Truman deliberately putting war profiteers and Nazi sympathizers in his cabinet for being such. I'm not sure where your idea that Truman caused the Cold War is coming from.
If you think the only reason the Soviet Union failed was because it had old people in its government then I can only conclude that you don't read much.
Sure Rooseveld left him a strong hand but worse leaders have failed with far better hands. Being able to identify and make use of your strong position is a sign of good leadership. A worse person could have wasted that chance. And with Truman not being prepared at all it wasn't a guarantee that he could handle the office of president. I'm also not too sure the cold war was pointless. Soviet Russia wasn't exactly a peaceful entity that could be trusted when left to their own devices. And Truman had to content with Stalin, pretty much the worst of the worst as far as Soviets go.
