The Race For 2024

[TSwizzle]

I found a fairly good article that discusses memory and forgetfulness at all ages. I personally think that a few of Biden's recent gaffes are due to the extreme stress he's been under along with the unsubstantiated claims made against him. Any of us, regardless of age, are likely to make similar errors.

Rearrange the following words into a familiar phrase;

Straws Clutching At

It’s laughable that some on here just can’t come to terms with what is plain to see. Brandon is is a feeble minded old man. He was never the brightest but holy shit, he’s way worse now and it’s getting worser

So what should they do about that, if it were true?

If it were true?

Hilarious

Waiting for you to answer the question.

You say Biden is a bad candidate.
So what should the people who currently plan to vote for him do instead?
What’s a BETTER alternative than voting for Biden?
What will YOU do?

These questions are irrelevant.

The relevant question is do you believe Brandon to be mentally fit not only to run for POTUS but serve a second term. I doubt you will answer honestly.

Brandon can't possibly run. It is getting close to the point now where he will be forced to step aside.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Brandon can't possibly run. It is getting close to the point now where he will be forced to step aside.

Forced by whom? If someone or some organization has the power to force him out of the race they clearly should have done so already, as it is getting pretty late for someone else to jump in and run a good campaign. Who would the replacement be? Kamala? Newsom?

That word “possible”. You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Some of us don’t believe it is “possible” that Trump can run, given that he is clearly disqualified by the Constitution. But somehow he is still running. Odd that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I found a fairly good article that discusses memory and forgetfulness at all ages. I personally think that a few of Biden's recent gaffes are due to the extreme stress he's been under along with the unsubstantiated claims made against him. Any of us, regardless of age, are likely to make similar errors.

Rearrange the following words into a familiar phrase;

Straws Clutching At

It’s laughable that some on here just can’t come to terms with what is plain to see. Brandon is is a feeble minded old man. He was never the brightest but holy shit, he’s way worse now and it’s getting worser

So what should they do about that, if it were true?

If it were true?

Hilarious

Waiting for you to answer the question.

You say Biden is a bad candidate.
So what should the people who currently plan to vote for him do instead?
What’s a BETTER alternative than voting for Biden?
What will YOU do?

These questions are irrelevant.

The relevant question is do you believe Brandon to be mentally fit not only to run for POTUS but serve a second term. I doubt you will answer honestly.

We don't have enough info. That is the honest answer. He isn't the sharpest he's been, but your posts about him are often cherry picked moments, not enduring episodes. We don't have video of Biden talking to Beau for 5 minutes. We've seen gaffes, mistakes, slow speech many of which is attributable to his speech pathology.

We simply don't know his typical disposition. The fact that he does go out to speak, does imply he has a good deal of faculty in his brain and his speaking isn't held to a small chest of familiar political speak.

 

[TSwizzle]

Brandon can't possibly run. It is getting close to the point now where he will be forced to step aside.

Forced by whom?

Forced to step aside due to his health. Brandon can stand down and publicly say something like "I just don't feel up to it" or however his staff/wife want to phrase it.

 

[TomC]

Brandon can't possibly run. It is getting close to the point now where he will be forced to step aside.

Forced by whom?

Forced to step aside due to his health. Brandon can stand down and publicly say something like "I just don't feel up to it" or however his staff/wife want to phrase it.

That's not an answer to the question that you quoted.

"Forced by whom?" was the question.

Tom

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Brandon can't possibly run. It is getting close to the point now where he will be forced to step aside.

And by "getting close to the point..." you mean that the Reich-wing masturbatory propaganda is at a fever pitch with QAnons everywhere screaming "yes, yes, yes, show me more claims of Brandon's senility" and "ooooooh baby, yeah, invoke the 25th amendment. invoke it. invoke it. I'm ready!"

But rational people recognize this as a delirious fantasy.

 

[Elixir]

I found a fairly good article that discusses memory and forgetfulness at all ages. I personally think that a few of Biden's recent gaffes are due to the extreme stress he's been under along with the unsubstantiated claims made against him. Any of us, regardless of age, are likely to make similar errors.

Rearrange the following words into a familiar phrase;

Straws Clutching At

It’s laughable that some on here just can’t come to terms with what is plain to see. Brandon is is a feeble minded old man. He was never the brightest but holy shit, he’s way worse now and it’s getting worser

So what should they do about that, if it were true?

If it were true?

Hilarious

Waiting for you to answer the question.

You say Biden is a bad candidate.
So what should the people who currently plan to vote for him do instead?
What’s a BETTER alternative than voting for Biden?
What will YOU do?

These questions are irrelevant.

The relevant question is do you believe Brandon to be mentally fit not only to run for POTUS but serve a second term. I doubt you will answer honestly.

Brandon can't possibly run. It is getting close to the point now where he will be forced to step aside.

That’s what your echo chamber says. Reality says he has done and continues to do an exemplary job as President. The economy is great, inflation shows the best recovery in the world, infrastructure, unemployment, student debt relief, international relations- all stuff Trump could never dream of.

it’s like the 2020 election. You can allege fraud, you can allege Biden’s incapacity but you can’t show evidence of fraud, nor of Biden’s incapacity as President. The outcomes he has produced have already put his opponent to shame in real terms.

Gawd I wish they allowed betting around here! Fools don’t exactly abound, but they make themselves easy to identify.

 

[bilby]

What I am hearing about Biden here in Australia is nothing at all. He isn't getting mentioned, which is, in my experience, a ringing endorsement of a US leader. They tend to make news only if they fuck something up, or say something incredibly stupid, which is why Trump was in the news constantly during his term.

 

[Shadowy Man]

"Forced by whom?" was the question.

And it wasn’t a rhetorical one. I am honestly interested in his response.

 

[Politesse]

It's pretty similar here. Except that very few Americans believe in the principle of "silence is a virtue". They actually seem to want a president who is in the news all the time, who bullies the Congress, appoints nakedly partisan justices, and directs the economy. We're no longer a monarchy, but we apparently long to be under an (elected) monarch. A Super Daddy, who we pick, but who then tells everyone what to do and how to do it and who to do it with.

Personally, I have never fully understood the appeal. Not only do I not believe that the president has magical powers over national affairs, I truly do not believe that he should be trying to, or that any sane person ought to ask him to. If you invite a fox into the henhouse, you can't be surprised when some chickens go missing. Even if a sitting president somehow "fixes inflation" or "solves immigration" or "puts America first" or other such over-reaching tasks, common sense ought to tell you that he's bound to do it in a way that benefits his social class more than yours.

But that kind of talk is what makes me a radical.

 

[Elixir]

"Forced by whom?" was the question.

And it wasn’t a rhetorical one. I am honestly interested in his response.

I think “George Soros” is the standard response.

 

[TSwizzle]

We're no longer a monarchy, but we apparently long to be under an (elected) monarch.

Who is this "we" you refer to? Because an "elected monarchy" was soundly rejected when Hillary Clinton was ushered into the nomination in 2016. There are murmurings of Michelle Obama being parachuted in as a replacement for the old duffer Brandon. So I guess the "we" you are referring to is the democratic party? And tell me you wouldn't be surprised to see Chelsea Clinton starting to climb the ladder and get into a position where she could make a run for the nomination in the future?

Fuck that.

 

[TomC]

Who is this "we" you refer to?

Teapartiers.
The people who support the insurrection president.
The ones who think that voting for "anyone but Biden" will help Make America Great Again. That's the "wee" we are talking about.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We're no longer a monarchy, but we apparently long to be under an (elected) monarch.

Who is this "we" you refer to? Because an "elected monarchy" was soundly rejected when Hillary Clinton was ushered into the nomination in 2016. There are murmurings of Michelle Obama being parachuted in as a replacement for the old duffer Brandon.

Alt-right wing media murmurings. As far as I could ever tell, Michelle Obama doesn't want to be in that hellscape. Chelsea Clinton is off doing her own thing. The W daughters are off doing their own thing as well.

Luckily for the GOP, they have a guy in Trump who ordered the GOP not to support the immigration reform bill that got put together in a masterwork effort by a Republican Senator, who managed to make the Democrats compromise on immigration legislation just to pass foreign aid support. All so that Trump could bitch about immigration. Trump ain't a monarch, but he has the GOP by the balls.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We're no longer a monarchy, but we apparently long to be under an (elected) monarch.

Who is this "we" you refer to? Because an "elected monarchy" was soundly rejected when Hillary Clinton was ushered into the nomination in 2016. There are murmurings of Michelle Obama being parachuted in as a replacement for the old duffer Brandon. So I guess the "we" you are referring to is the democratic party? And tell me you wouldn't be surprised to see Chelsea Clinton starting to climb the ladder and get into a position where she could make a run for the nomination in the future?

You left out Taylor Swift. I mean, that's why they fixed the Super Bowl, right. She's gonna choose Ben Afleck as her VP, too. That's why he did the commercial. They're slowly trying to get you to like them with catchy jingles. Every time, you hear her music or see his ad, you should tell everyone around you they're about to be brainwashed. Then, run quickly out of hearing range!

 

[Politesse]

We're no longer a monarchy, but we apparently long to be under an (elected) monarch.

Who is this "we" you refer to? Because an "elected monarchy" was soundly rejected when Hillary Clinton was ushered into the nomination in 2016. There are murmurings of Michelle Obama being parachuted in as a replacement for the old duffer Brandon. So I guess the "we" you are referring to is the democratic party? And tell me you wouldn't be surprised to see Chelsea Clinton starting to climb the ladder and get into a position where she could make a run for the nomination in the future?

Fuck that.

We, as in Americans. Potential presidents who do not play the "Big Dog" for the public never get very far in the game, and the most common criticism of every president is that they "didn't do enough" to enact their will or that of their party. I don't see why you think this would be a partisan matter, the Left and Right want essentially the same things out of the Oval Office, to both control and be controlled by a powerful leader. Hillary was an unusual candidate for her sex, yes, but not in her temperament, her strengths, or her weaknesses.

And I definitely don't see how selecting the wife or daughter of a previous executive, as in your examples, would make us look less like a monarchy. Isn't that usually how crowns are passed on, down family lines?

 

[TSwizzle]

We're no longer a monarchy, but we apparently long to be under an (elected) monarch.

Who is this "we" you refer to? Because an "elected monarchy" was soundly rejected when Hillary Clinton was ushered into the nomination in 2016. There are murmurings of Michelle Obama being parachuted in as a replacement for the old duffer Brandon. So I guess the "we" you are referring to is the democratic party? And tell me you wouldn't be surprised to see Chelsea Clinton starting to climb the ladder and get into a position where she could make a run for the nomination in the future?

Fuck that.

We, as in Americans. Potential presidents who do not play the "Big Dog" for the public never get very far in the game, and the most common criticism of every president is that they "didn't do enough" to enact their will or that of their party. I don't see why you think this would be a partisan matter, the Left and Right want essentially the same things out of the Oval Office, to both control and be controlled by a powerful leader. Hillary was an unusual candidate for her sex, yes, but not in her temperament, her strengths, or her weaknesses.

I am not seeing what you see. "We' all voted for "Hope and Change" (and got neither) when Obama was elected, twice. "We" rejected the Clinton dynasty in favor of a TV game show host. Then "we" elected a Sleepy Joe, an ineffective career politician. I don't see that as being indicative of Americans seeking some kind of elected monarchy. Quite the opposite in fact.

And I definitely don't see how selecting the wife or daughter of a previous executive, as in your examples, would make us look less like a monarchy. Isn't that usually how crowns are passed on, down family lines?

You seem to have missed my point or I wasn't clear but yes.

 

[Politesse]

I am not seeing what you see. "We' all voted for "Hope and Change" (and got neither) when Obama was elected, twice. "We" rejected the Clinton dynasty in favor of a TV game show host. Then "we" elected a Sleepy Joe, an ineffective career politician. I don't see that as being indicative of Americans seeking some kind of elected monarchy. Quite the opposite in fact.

By leaning heavily on ever more expansive executive orders, ramming legislation through Congress, unilaterally declaring wars, appointing partison judges to the Supreme Court, and somehow magically producing a "good economy" with a paradoxical blend of high employment and low inflation. Why do people hate Sleepy Joe now that they have him? The government is actually running just fine, by any rational metric aside from the humanitarian. But he's boring. He doesn't look good on tv. And he didn't "make" everyone do stuff, like aggresively promoting a Progressive agenda, or waving the magic anti-inflation wand he keeps in his special pants.

Perhaps it was I who was unclear. By monarchy, I mean not someone wearing a crown and satin robe as such, but in its literal sense: rule by one. Someone big, brash, always on TV, someone you can hold personally responsible for the laws in the courts and the worth of the dollar. It's not rational to think that electing one man could somehow cause "Hope and Change" to happen, or "America Made Great Again". We all of us have a lot more collectively to do with whether any of that happens than does any president. But the American public favors the fantasy of a magical man fighting to solve their problems for them.

 

[ZiprHead]

We're no longer a monarchy, but we apparently long to be under an (elected) monarch.

Who is this "we" you refer to? Because an "elected monarchy" was soundly rejected when Hillary Clinton was ushered into the nomination in 2016. There are murmurings of Michelle Obama being parachuted in as a replacement for the old duffer Brandon. So I guess the "we" you are referring to is the democratic party? And tell me you wouldn't be surprised to see Chelsea Clinton starting to climb the ladder and get into a position where she could make a run for the nomination in the future?

Fuck that.

Soundly rejected? Are you talking about the same Hillary Clinton that got 3 million more votes than the Cheeto Bandito?

 

[TSwizzle]

I am not seeing what you see. "We' all voted for "Hope and Change" (and got neither) when Obama was elected, twice. "We" rejected the Clinton dynasty in favor of a TV game show host. Then "we" elected a Sleepy Joe, an ineffective career politician. I don't see that as being indicative of Americans seeking some kind of elected monarchy. Quite the opposite in fact.

By leaning heavily on ever more expansive executive orders, ramming legislation through Congress, unilaterally declaring wars, appointing partison judges to the Supreme Court, and somehow magically producing a "good economy" with a paradoxical blend high employment and low inflation. Why do people hate Sleepy Joe now that they have him? The government is actually running just fine, by any rational metric aside from the humanitarian. But he's boring. He doesn't look good on tv. And he didn't "make" everyone do stuff, like aggresively promoting a Progressive agenda, or waving the magic anti-inflation wand he keeps in his special pants.

Perhaps it was I who was unclera, By monarcy, I mean not someone wearing a crown and satin robe as such, but in its literal sense: rule by one. Someone big, brash, always on TV, someone you can hold personally responsible for the laws in the courts and the worth of the dollar.

I still don't think Americans want an elected monarchy. For sure Sleepy Joe (and in California, Gavin Newsom) rule by decree. That is not something I want. I guess we just end up with it no matter who wins.