Credible positive change usually only happens after years of violent protest, but at the very least I can vote Biden in as a stopgap while we figure out some stuff. I’d rather be protesting for my right to live without Trump deporting us over it.
New York Times on full out crusade to elect Trump by destroying Biden. Another front page demand for him to drop out. For the record, they did not call for Trump to leave after January 6 or 34 felony convictions. They also ran breathless story on non news that Parkinson's specialist visited White House eight times in eight months, picking up on New York Post completely evidence free claim Biden has Parkinson's. Five of the doctor's eight visits happened when Biden was not in DC. He has been consultant to US military on neurology for years. So this non news is now another reason to back Trump.
Let's settle this. It is time for a cognitive test, and a mental competency test, be given to Biden, and Trump. I have serious doubts either one of them is mentally capable of handling the job of president.
But I genuinely was being optimistic! That *is* my optimism: that someday in the 2100s this will all be behind us and Zagger’s kids can tell their grandchildren about the dark days they had to live through and how we have it so easy now. That’s the level of hope we need to have because right now we have to fight for every inch.
I think they should do very thorough vetting before you can apply for the job. A thorough physical examination along with a cognitive test and a test covering the global landscape and the history of world govt as well as American history. The job needs to attract talent for a change. Included in the vetting should be a clean financial background check and audit ...presidents shouldn't be in court for sexual assault, bank fraud and mishandling of classified documents and allowed to run for president. The bar is way too low.
It's a meaningless point. Biden has to stop Trump from regaining the White House. Biden is clearly the better choice than Trump, who is possibly the worst choice of all-time. Biden also would be surrounded by a much better team than Trump, especially if Trump would be implementing Project 2025. No one is looking to elect Biden for four years. They are looking to elect him for the present and his team for four years. There's no guarantee Trump would be in office for four years, either, but it's not a chance this country can afford to take. Also, Collin Rugg is one of the worst accounts on X. A mercenary that floods the platform with whatever he's paid to flood it with and the takes all are over the top bad. He kisses up to Musk, so, if your app gets switched from "followers" to "for you," for some reason you get all these Collin Rugg posts even though he might not have anything in common with the algorithm of your interests.
You literally just described a few of the posters there. I think that's against the rules. BAN HAMMER!
You literally proved my main point. Thank you. Democrats and republicans both argue exactly the same way. Look away from posted proof of what Biden and party/Trump and party hasn't done, to wave their "bright shiny evidence" at you as their proof. If democrats and republicans aren't willing to accept proof of Biden's and democrats failings/Trump and republican failings: Why should anyone debate fairly and argue, with their one-sided evidence, with either party? Obviously they shouldn't. Neither side actually debates fairly. Always debating... in favor of their own party. If people are willing to dismiss what their party hasn't done, their evidence should be equally dismissed on what their party supposedly did do. That is "fair" debating, imo. People don't have to change party, hate their own. But wake up and see your own party for it's failings, or nobody should ever take a word you say seriously, about anything at all.
