Can we all agree that since we have an age-minimum of 35, then we should have an age-maximum tied to, say, retirement age?
The argument is simple: nobody is in their prime past retirement age. Nobody. And this by default suggests we guaranteed have better options to run the presidency than some geriatric seniors.
Quotes from post 2019 Trump vs. Biden debate:
Trump is “the bully I knew my whole life,” Biden told CNN in an interview. “He’s the bully I’ve always stood up to.”
Biden was asked how Democratic voters can have confidence that he’s up to taking on Trump when he had trouble sparring in last week’s debate against party rivals.
“I don’t think I’m having trouble sparring. It’s how you want to spar,” Biden said. “This is ironic. I’ve never been accused of not being able to spar. I’ve been accused of being too aggressive.”
Biden said he would beat Trump by “pointing out who I am and who he is and what we’re for and what he’s against.”
“This guy is the ‘divider-in-chief,’” said Biden, who added he will “fight without being personal” in this campaign.
Let’s not forget in Biden’s own words, he decided to run for President following Trump’s words over the neo-nazi rally in Charlottesville.
Respect. This is all going to get very interesting for the next week…
My dude, you’re equating readings from teleprompters and crowd greetings compared to organic conversation and debate.
White House said he wasn’t on cold meds for debate.
Colds don’t cause you to jump mid-sentence from abortion to immigration. Or to, “finally beat Medicare.” Enough copium.
I’ll be honest, I don’t think I’d be fully convinced even if he does well. Why? Because Biden ran on taking the fight to Trump. He campaigned on using his Irish fighting spirit to push the bully back and anything but that has happened.
Moreover this won’t be seen by a fraction of the number of people who saw that debate. Little said here can detract from what people saw of Biden’s “bad days” during that debate.
I wish him luck because I want to be convinced he’s our best shot, but it’s going to take more than one good interview, personally.
I do appreciate sources, but you should know better by now that the majority of these points have been thoroughly debunked.
Instead of meandering on this wild goose-chase, why don’t you just respond with the two most relevant things:
(1) You said yourself, “Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, no question, but–”
NO BUTS. That’s IT. Russia is IN THE WRONG.
(2) How do you ensure a tyrant doesn’t regroup under a ceasefire and strike again after he gained a prize? In what realm do you believe dictators just suddenly stop without being smacked down? Did Hitler stop after he got Poland?
Whew, lots of half-truths and misinformation to unpack here, but I take it the gishgallop is the intent. Perhaps you should consider a ceasefire now because this argument will never end and you will slowly hemorrhage down-votes.
For starters, since you distinguish yourself from “people in the West,” I’m curious from where you reside? People from the West don’t normally say, “People in the west.”
NATO is primarily a defensive organization with a voluntary membership. Its bolstering is a direct reflection of the outside aggressive risks. In fact, prior to Putin’s invasion NATO was largely collecting dust. To be clear, Russia could just as easily reinstitute the Warsaw Pact – but the problem is nobody wants to join because there is no legitimate risk of NATO suddenly attacking a sovereign peaceful and stable nation. “nAtO EXpAnSioNism” is therefore utterly irrelevant and in fact, Russia is invoking a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Jn before pointing to fringe outlier incidents that are contextually much more complicated, or events where Russia could’ve vetoed but permitted on the UNSC).
As for far right neo-nazi groups, pro-tip: Azov doesn’t account for even 1% of the total UAF. Talk about pointing to outliers. But I’m sure Zelenskyy – who is Jewish and whose ancestors were in the Holocaust – is really neo-nazi… Just stop and think about it for a second :)
Let’s not forget that Putin has since backpedaled on the Budest Memorandum and like Hitler invading Poland, invaded a sovereign nation under the false pretenses of protecting ethnic groups. How awfully convenient.
Thus far you are drinking the Russia Vodka. I encourage you to stop being so gullibly duped.
Russia was wrong to invade Ukraine, no question, but in the beginning there was a potential diplomatic resolution on the table if the US and NATO were willing to back off Ukraine.
Incorrect. What Putin actually stated was that so long as Ukraine didn’t join NATO, then he wouldn’t attack. Ukraine pledged to not join NATO, and yet Putin attacked them anyway. But you know, it sure is funny how all those nations under the NATO banner HAVEN’T been attacked by Russia. It’s almost like… That’s kind of the… Point of NATO? Golly!
Russia is using second-hand ammunitions from North Korea that are blowing up in the faces of Russian troops. Russia is seeking help from 2-bit nations like Iran, and sure, some help from China. But China’s economy is wholly dependent on its economic relations with USA, and so will not overextend.
Russia itself has an economy smaller than California. Aid will continue to Ukraine and Ukraine can easily out-pace Russia. After all, the smaller Soviet-Afghan War brought down a stronger USSR.
“No End in Sight” doesn’t mean endless war. People enter tunnels for which they cannot see the end; but that doesn’t mean it’s endless…
So I repeat what was dodged; What will Corbyn say and do when Ukraine commits to a ceasefire, loses 17% of its landmass, allows Russia to regroup its forces, and strikes again?
Ah Russia,
They’re speedrunning to become North Korea.
Pretty well established that Russian misinformation had a part to play in Brexit, yes?
So… Touting the Russian narrative.
Anyone who’s been following the Ukraine conflict from the start knows this is a Russian talking-point.
And who says the war will be endless? That’s another Russian talking-point intending to sow defeatism.
What will Corbyn say and do when Ukraine commits to a ceasefire, loses 17% of its landmass, allows Russia to regroup its forces, and strikes again?
They tried. Lobbyists got Congress to shoot it down.
It’s not difficult. Functioning designs already exist. Hell most if not all cars today have weight sensors to determine airbag deployment.
If it saves one kid, then I’m all for it.
By the way: this famous article is a must-read for this topic
There are two ways to look at this. In one respect you can say why the hell are so many Americans still not grasping just how bad Trump is?
But then you need to assume the responsibility of being the more informed party and adjust your strategy not for the electorate you want but for the electorate you have.
And that electorate is demanding a better candidate for Democrats to appeal to said uninformed undecided swing state voters who will decide this election.
Some people have a gene that makes them hyper-sensitive to caffeine. You either try lowering the dose or just no amount may work for you.
Biden had 1 long-shot chance to bridge echo-chambers and show the country he can lead. To reach those undecided swing-state voters.
It’s why he took this debate. Because he was already losing them.
And he blew it to such a catastrophic level it’s not impacting congressional down-ballot races already.
Fun fact: Biden now shares the title of Ford, Carter, HW Bush, and Trump who were incumbent presidents who trailed in polls both before and after the first debate… All of whom lost reelection.
So I just want to be clear about something. Press Secretary, Jean-Pierre said yesterday (as she often repeats per their messaging): “Biden’s record speaks for itself.”
I want to go like, “Hi, Press Secretary. Quick follow-up: If it speaks for itself, then why is Biden losing in every battleground state with an aggregate national approval rating of 37%?”
It doesn’t seem that letting it speak for itself is working.
Thanks for that clarification. I was trying to reconcile the differences between the models and couldn’t even find info in the Wikipedia article.
About 5% of all Americans spend some amount of time in prison, fun fact.
Yep, totally official move of the president covered by immunity, if I’m reading the Court right!
Well said. The number of down-votes on hard truths like this submission but a complete lack of substantive argument prove they’re in denial.
True… I shouldn’t give them more cause to raise or eliminate it. How’s 65 as a hard cap?