Dude, those are my own observations of Faux News. I used watch them way back in the good ‘ol days when they were Fox News, a good conservative leaning but somewhat balanced network. Then they lost their minds when Obama became president in 2009.
Fox News Editorial says Harris won the debate...
- Thread starter Riveting
- Start date
without looking it up, was this the place where police were too scared to go inside until after a parent did or was that another place? Had you been a bit older you might recall tornado or even bomb drills? Kids are not learning near what they should. Course someone could shoot people before going to school. The reality is that this (school shootings) never happened years ago and so the obvious question is what happened in the culture to make "life" meaningless and to strike out at those you disagree with in violent ways? Like Columbine, are children not getting enough disappointments (victimhood) that they never develop coping skills when disappointments grow in severity and have no background in dealing with such to help them?
Obviously a culture problem and a growing segment believing they are mistreated...
I never thought I'd say this, but comparing Marjorie Taylor-Greene to Laura Loomer is an insult to... Marjorie Taylor-Greene.
And as if the 'eating dogs and cats' anti-immigrant screed that Loomer fed to Trump wasn't enough?
Today, Donald Trump took her to the NYC 9/11 ceremony:
"Laura Loomer, a self-described “pro-white nationalist” and “proud Islamophobe,” accompanied Trump and J.D. Vance Wednesday to the annual service at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum, and then to a fire station in lower Manhattan to meet with New York firefighters and commemorate those who died in the 9/11 attacks."
Is this some sort of Orwellian newspeak that dem libs like you use? Calling for armed guards and metal detectors at schools shows I don't care??
Are you saying it can't possibly work because it didn't work in Uvalde (which I think was actually a case of a teacher propping a locked door open to make it easier for cell phone calls - not that I want to trouble you with any facts)?
Part of the prevention of such systems is keeping people from trying in the first place. They work pretty well at busy court houses.
What do you suggest in your woke wisdom?
I recognize Trump's personality weaknesses, which were on full display last night. I have never said policy is all that matters, but that actions are far more important to me than words. I bet most citizens agree with that, even if you, 95 and other libs on this forum don't.
Loomer may well be bc crazy, as you say, but it was obvious in the June debate Biden is bc senile and that Harris and others had covered that up. Do you now acknowledge that given how obvious it is - and what a true danger that is to the nation?
Now is when the dem-lib handbook says you are supposed to cry 'whataboutism" - which is another way of saying don't point out some inconvenient truth that reveals your dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Smart and 'never-Democrat' Andy McCarthy has officially had it with Donald Trump. Worth reading his column today:
By Andrew C. McCarthy
September 11, 2024 9:15 AM
You know who cares about the notorious bias of the media-Democrat complex? Conservatives. You know who was not the relevant, target audience for last night’s debate between presidential candidates? Conservatives.
If you’re obsessing over how bad, how in the tank for Kamala Harris, the two ABC news moderators were, it’s because you don’t want to come to grips with the brute fact that Donald Trump was a disaster last night. He was unhinged, often incoherent, incapable of completing thoughts and sentences when he had points to make, and led into self-absorbed rabbit-holes — claims that he won the 2020 election, the size of his rallies, whether “migrants” are eating stolen pets — that diverted him from opportunity after opportunity to expose Harris as a radical leftist now pretending to be a pragmatic centrist who suddenly loves her some guns.
Trump had one job: stay on message about Harris’s dizzying renunciations of her positions — so inexplicable that Harris has dribbled them out through nameless campaign sources rather than addressed them in her own voice. All he needed to do was reduce to the punchline it deserves to be her claim that her “values” have never changed. It is simply impossible to maintain an immutable core while ushering millions of illegal aliens into the country on one day then posing the next as a border hawk; while casting the deciding vote on legislation that spiked inflation to 40-year highs on one day, then posing the next as a champion of financially battered families; while defunding the police and bailing out riotous criminals on one day, then posing the next as the tough-minded law-and-order prosecutor; while enriching Iran and making common with its pro-Hamas agitators one day, then posing the next as a staunch defender of Israel.
Trump couldn’t do it. And yes, that’s largely because he is an undisciplined solipsist so effortlessly drawn into railing about rally attendance when the subject at hand is Harris’s indefensible border record — and if you think last night’s target audience cares whether the interlocutor steering Trump off course was Harris or the moderators, then you’re missing the point.
But there’s more to it than that. Trump also couldn’t stick to deconstructing Harris’s “values” bunk because his own values are always negotiable. Because he’s an opportunist with some conservative leanings, rather than a conservative in search of opportunities to advance the cause, Trump often can’t decide whether to deride Harris’s cynical policy shifts or try to get to her left.
Harris may be a cipher, and a demonstrably subpar one at that, but she’s enough of a trained lawyer that she can lock herself in a room for a week and learn her lines. The question was whether she could deliver them convincingly enough. On that, the secret sauce was . . . Trump.
This was the first debate all over again — the Trump-Biden debate. This time, though, the less-than-stellar Democrat wasn’t senile.
Trump fans, naturally, spout their man’s delusional version of the first debate, to wit: Trump was a force of nature who annihilated Biden through his dazzling debating skills. The truth of the matter is that Trump was terrible that night. Biden lost — not just the debate, but his candidacy and, in effect, his presidency — because he is a senescent old man who had a couple of brain freezes, which might have been less apparent to the country except for debate rules (opposed by Trump, of course) that deadened Trump’s mic and prevented him from stepping on Biden’s implosion.
This all happened in the first 20 minutes of the debate. As the legendary New York sportscaster Warner Wolf liked to say, “You could’ve turned your sets off right there.” Biden was toast. But here’s the thing: If you didn’t turn your television set off, if you kept watching the debate, you saw that Biden, despite his diminished state, smacked Trump around for the next hour. Inevitably, Biden faded in the closing minutes, but only after he’d goaded Trump into ranting and raving.
What energized Biden during that forgotten stretch was Trump. His flailing, his inability to get over himself and stick to issues, helped Biden get his footing. Debating can be reactive. A debater who can’t remember his canned lines often finds a comfort level by responding pointedly to the opponent’s missteps, whereupon he suddenly starts remembering his canned lines, too.
That’s what happened last night, except Harris is not non compos mentis. It was shrewd of her to take the initiative of approaching a surprised Trump to introduce herself as he slid behind his podium, having assumed there’d be no pleasantries. But then the vice president had to begin speaking extemporaneously, which is not her strong suit — her voice wasn’t strong and she seemed nervous.
Soon, though, Trump settled her right in. As she saw how poorly he was performing, and as she was buoyed by the realization that the moderators would carry her through any rough patches and contradict Trump themselves if she’d missed a point, her increasing confidence was manifest. She wasn’t great, but she didn’t need to be. She just needed the debate to be about Trump rather than herself. Mission accomplished.
As regular readers know, I’ve never given Trump much chance of winning. Democrats — rightly, however deviously — wanted to run against him because they believed even Biden (or, as it turns out, Harris) could beat him. They orchestrated lawfare to rally the Republican base to Trump — to prevent more electable Republicans from gaining traction in the primaries — because they wanted him to be nominated. This wasn’t rocket science; Republicans have steadily lost ground at the state and national level ever since Trump took over the party, and Democrats have thrived by supporting Trump-backed candidates in intramural GOP contests, knowing they’d beat the Trump candidates in November — when the relevant electorate is the broad public, in which Trump is unpopular, rather than Trump’s devoted but small base of supporters.
Democrats have been running this play since 2018. It works.
I’ll admit it: The Biden-Harris administration has been so bad — on the economy, on the border (and the nationwide spread of mass illegal immigration and its resulting stresses on states and cities), on national security, on alliances with Islamists and the insane campus left — that a Trump win has not been as implausible as I believed it would be by this point in the campaign. Democrats didn’t get the bounce they’d anticipated out of lawfare phase two — the string of trials, convictions, and sentences of Trump. Biden’s mental and physical deterioration became a shocking albatross.
All that said, though, there have always been Trump’s incorrigible problems: his hard ceiling, his unpopularity with suburban voters that Republicans need, his penchant to play to his base rather than build out his support, his bad breakups with former advisers who authoritatively brand him as unfit, and his schtick — more exhausting than ever in Trump Era year nine. As a result, the race has never been about whether Trump can break out — he can’t; he’d be lucky to stay at 46 nationally, and we’re at the point where his slight, within-the-margin-of-error lead in battleground states can easily become a deficit.
No, the X-factor in the race is: How much of the narrow Obama-era majority Democrats can claw back, after years of steering the country into a ditch. I’ve assumed all along they’d claw back enough, especially if — with Trump’s self-destructive help — they made the election about him rather than about Biden-Harris.
The diminishing pool of undecided voters are not people obsessed with politics; they are people who tune in, a bit, after Labor Day. By then, the election is only weeks away and they can no longer go about their nonpolitical lives without being inundated by campaign ads. Those people don’t care about media bias, and if they watched the debate they may not have noticed it — certainly not the way that we, who are watching like hawks for it, notice and are incensed by it. What those voters are curious about is this: Can we imagine Kamala Harris — until recently, unpopular but little known or cared about — as president of the United States?
Last night, Donald Trump helped them answer, “Yes.”
By Andrew C. McCarthy
September 11, 2024 9:15 AM
You know who cares about the notorious bias of the media-Democrat complex? Conservatives. You know who was not the relevant, target audience for last night’s debate between presidential candidates? Conservatives.
If you’re obsessing over how bad, how in the tank for Kamala Harris, the two ABC news moderators were, it’s because you don’t want to come to grips with the brute fact that Donald Trump was a disaster last night. He was unhinged, often incoherent, incapable of completing thoughts and sentences when he had points to make, and led into self-absorbed rabbit-holes — claims that he won the 2020 election, the size of his rallies, whether “migrants” are eating stolen pets — that diverted him from opportunity after opportunity to expose Harris as a radical leftist now pretending to be a pragmatic centrist who suddenly loves her some guns.
Trump had one job: stay on message about Harris’s dizzying renunciations of her positions — so inexplicable that Harris has dribbled them out through nameless campaign sources rather than addressed them in her own voice. All he needed to do was reduce to the punchline it deserves to be her claim that her “values” have never changed. It is simply impossible to maintain an immutable core while ushering millions of illegal aliens into the country on one day then posing the next as a border hawk; while casting the deciding vote on legislation that spiked inflation to 40-year highs on one day, then posing the next as a champion of financially battered families; while defunding the police and bailing out riotous criminals on one day, then posing the next as the tough-minded law-and-order prosecutor; while enriching Iran and making common with its pro-Hamas agitators one day, then posing the next as a staunch defender of Israel.
Trump couldn’t do it. And yes, that’s largely because he is an undisciplined solipsist so effortlessly drawn into railing about rally attendance when the subject at hand is Harris’s indefensible border record — and if you think last night’s target audience cares whether the interlocutor steering Trump off course was Harris or the moderators, then you’re missing the point.
But there’s more to it than that. Trump also couldn’t stick to deconstructing Harris’s “values” bunk because his own values are always negotiable. Because he’s an opportunist with some conservative leanings, rather than a conservative in search of opportunities to advance the cause, Trump often can’t decide whether to deride Harris’s cynical policy shifts or try to get to her left.
Harris may be a cipher, and a demonstrably subpar one at that, but she’s enough of a trained lawyer that she can lock herself in a room for a week and learn her lines. The question was whether she could deliver them convincingly enough. On that, the secret sauce was . . . Trump.
This was the first debate all over again — the Trump-Biden debate. This time, though, the less-than-stellar Democrat wasn’t senile.
Trump fans, naturally, spout their man’s delusional version of the first debate, to wit: Trump was a force of nature who annihilated Biden through his dazzling debating skills. The truth of the matter is that Trump was terrible that night. Biden lost — not just the debate, but his candidacy and, in effect, his presidency — because he is a senescent old man who had a couple of brain freezes, which might have been less apparent to the country except for debate rules (opposed by Trump, of course) that deadened Trump’s mic and prevented him from stepping on Biden’s implosion.
This all happened in the first 20 minutes of the debate. As the legendary New York sportscaster Warner Wolf liked to say, “You could’ve turned your sets off right there.” Biden was toast. But here’s the thing: If you didn’t turn your television set off, if you kept watching the debate, you saw that Biden, despite his diminished state, smacked Trump around for the next hour. Inevitably, Biden faded in the closing minutes, but only after he’d goaded Trump into ranting and raving.
What energized Biden during that forgotten stretch was Trump. His flailing, his inability to get over himself and stick to issues, helped Biden get his footing. Debating can be reactive. A debater who can’t remember his canned lines often finds a comfort level by responding pointedly to the opponent’s missteps, whereupon he suddenly starts remembering his canned lines, too.
That’s what happened last night, except Harris is not non compos mentis. It was shrewd of her to take the initiative of approaching a surprised Trump to introduce herself as he slid behind his podium, having assumed there’d be no pleasantries. But then the vice president had to begin speaking extemporaneously, which is not her strong suit — her voice wasn’t strong and she seemed nervous.
Soon, though, Trump settled her right in. As she saw how poorly he was performing, and as she was buoyed by the realization that the moderators would carry her through any rough patches and contradict Trump themselves if she’d missed a point, her increasing confidence was manifest. She wasn’t great, but she didn’t need to be. She just needed the debate to be about Trump rather than herself. Mission accomplished.
As regular readers know, I’ve never given Trump much chance of winning. Democrats — rightly, however deviously — wanted to run against him because they believed even Biden (or, as it turns out, Harris) could beat him. They orchestrated lawfare to rally the Republican base to Trump — to prevent more electable Republicans from gaining traction in the primaries — because they wanted him to be nominated. This wasn’t rocket science; Republicans have steadily lost ground at the state and national level ever since Trump took over the party, and Democrats have thrived by supporting Trump-backed candidates in intramural GOP contests, knowing they’d beat the Trump candidates in November — when the relevant electorate is the broad public, in which Trump is unpopular, rather than Trump’s devoted but small base of supporters.
Democrats have been running this play since 2018. It works.
I’ll admit it: The Biden-Harris administration has been so bad — on the economy, on the border (and the nationwide spread of mass illegal immigration and its resulting stresses on states and cities), on national security, on alliances with Islamists and the insane campus left — that a Trump win has not been as implausible as I believed it would be by this point in the campaign. Democrats didn’t get the bounce they’d anticipated out of lawfare phase two — the string of trials, convictions, and sentences of Trump. Biden’s mental and physical deterioration became a shocking albatross.
All that said, though, there have always been Trump’s incorrigible problems: his hard ceiling, his unpopularity with suburban voters that Republicans need, his penchant to play to his base rather than build out his support, his bad breakups with former advisers who authoritatively brand him as unfit, and his schtick — more exhausting than ever in Trump Era year nine. As a result, the race has never been about whether Trump can break out — he can’t; he’d be lucky to stay at 46 nationally, and we’re at the point where his slight, within-the-margin-of-error lead in battleground states can easily become a deficit.
No, the X-factor in the race is: How much of the narrow Obama-era majority Democrats can claw back, after years of steering the country into a ditch. I’ve assumed all along they’d claw back enough, especially if — with Trump’s self-destructive help — they made the election about him rather than about Biden-Harris.
The diminishing pool of undecided voters are not people obsessed with politics; they are people who tune in, a bit, after Labor Day. By then, the election is only weeks away and they can no longer go about their nonpolitical lives without being inundated by campaign ads. Those people don’t care about media bias, and if they watched the debate they may not have noticed it — certainly not the way that we, who are watching like hawks for it, notice and are incensed by it. What those voters are curious about is this: Can we imagine Kamala Harris — until recently, unpopular but little known or cared about — as president of the United States?
Last night, Donald Trump helped them answer, “Yes.”
This is exactly what I was trying to convey in one of my posts from yesterday. Republicans could have had it in the bag easily for a next term, but for reasons unknown, they saddled themselves right back up with this guy, and Republicans now just spend their time defending the indefensible. Everything else is simply semantics as long as this guy is in the running.
Can you give an example of any administration member in history who came out with dirt on their president during his term? He's senile, he's corrupt, whatever. I can't........because it doesn't happen. Members of an administration are going to protect their president. Trumps people did the same thing. In addition, the whistleblower would be committing career suicide.
I can only imagine how you would have reacted if Pence or Mattis or Kelly or about 40 other trump admin members had come out and spoke their mind during his presidency.
I know it's one of your "go to" talking points but it's not based in reality when it comes to a practical application. Why could possibly make you think Harris would come out against Biden?
I think Joe has good days and bad days and is probably a lot better in the morning. I think he can handle the job just fine for a few more months.
Lol. No, I don't believe he is a true danger to our nation.
I am surprised you didn't call it treason, another less used but still active item on your list.
What's a "black job" B? I've never seen a white job or a black job. I've always had "jobs".
Sorry, I took the intent of your post that Kamala had won and Trump lost. Did I misinterpret that?
My P95Grad translator may be off if you thought Trump won the debate
Wasn't it not only the door propped open, but the cops were afraid to go inside? Sometimes that happens...people freeze (who is left to protect if a cop can't?). Some staff would be qualified. Now, are you more likely to not take action when someone else is in danger or yourself? The whole gun violence is a crock. Once you eliminate clubs, hammers and suicides, it isn't that long black gun that people kill other people near as much as that short pistol that people kill other people with. Course that pistol isn't a threat to a government like that black gun and so they go after the long black gun that looks scary. Drugs coming across the border are killing more people, but they would rather shut down the country than the border than illegals who apparently couldn't transmit covid. It gets so confusing if I can't find a link to tell me what to believe...
Bni, a true student of history according to bni, will be appalled at your comment here. Lincoln had several internal but vocal detractors, especially Gen. George C. McClellan, who thought he should be president and even ran against Lincoln in 1864. Read Team of Rivals.
Trump had several internal detractors as well among generals tied to the mil-industrial DC complex (eg, Matthis) and the warmongering class (Bolton) - not to mention FBI hacks who were immediately talking about invoking the 25th when Trump took office.
I really do appreciate that you don't claim to be a Purdue grad.
I challenge you to find a single place where I used the word 'treason' inappropriately because I know you are making that up.
The long black gun is the choice of weapon in mass shootings.Wasn't it not only the door propped open, but the cops were afraid to go inside? Sometimes that happens...people freeze (who is left to protect if a cop can't?). Some staff would be qualified. Now, are you more likely to not take action when someone else is in danger or yourself? The whole gun violence is a crock. Once you eliminate clubs, hammers and suicides, it isn't that long black gun that people kill other people near as much as that short pistol that people kill other people with. Course that pistol isn't a threat to a government like that black gun and so they go after the long black gun that looks scary. Drugs coming across the border are killing more people, but they would rather shut down the country than the border than illegals who apparently couldn't transmit covid. It gets so confusing if I can't find a link to tell me what to believe...
The door propped open? Lol. So you eliminate the school "soft targets", as JD refers to them. Cops at every entrance and teachers armed to the teeth.
What about the soccer game? What about the parking lot before or after school? What about the big yellow school buses that stop all the time?
Stop letting 18 year olds buy ARs. They can't buy a handgun. You blame the violence on the crazies? Then stop fighting against every new law that might stop the crazies with more and better background checks, including red flag laws.
And when you can kill people with a club at the same rate as an AR with a 30 round mag, we can talk about laws against having them.
So it isn't the number of deaths that is important? Having less deaths but quicker is worse than more deaths that may be slower? It still seems the open border has killed more people quicker than the AR you reference. Should there be more focus on the open border than scary 5.56 or .223 that has not only killed less...but at a much slower rate...with many...many...many idle moments
Replacing McClellan with Grant was the single biggest move Lincoln made to end the war. When you get a chance see the new post I made. I don't know anything about the "independents", but it is your old tracking as comments are made with red (repub), blue (traitors) and yellow(maybe just now getting the picture).
What are you talking about?
Preventing death is important.
If you have a club and I don't, I have a decent chance of preventing you from killing me. Plus, if there are 5 guys around me, I have an excellent chance of stopping you.
If you have an AR and have an idea of how to use it, I have no chance to stop you. The 5 guys around me are dead as well.
The stupidest argument I've ever heard. How about we arm our soldiers with clubs instead of M4s?
A pretty clumsy attempt at deflection with the border thing but good try.
Looks like you are violating the copyright law again.
Where does he say Harris would be a better president for the nation than Trump?
if preventing death is important, then perhaps less victimhood should be in play? Something happened to make life meaningless...to remove those things that are a nuisance. Never used to be that way. What changed to treat life so deposable today and more reverend years ago? That is a hard one! How has killing been encouraged? If deaths are important then there are things above and beyond a gun that kill more. If guns killing people are a concern, then pistols kill more. Lot of people kill lots of ways, Can you not have 30 mags for pistols. Can you not have a big mag in a mini 14?
Now again if "being killed" is a concern, the border has way more deaths attributed to it than the scary guns. Course closing the border and getting tough on the border doesn't virtue signal quite the same as gun confiscation or other bites towards that end.
So you don't have examples that apply.
You could have said Monica Lewinsky or Deep throat but they weren't in the administration at the time. Neither Bolton nor Mattis were saying publicly their boss shouldn't be president or is unfit for office while they were working for him. That's what you are saying Harris and other Biden officials should have done.
You're calling for these people to do something that isn't done and then holding it against them because they don't.
You posted that you were going to your “black job”. Certainly you know what one is. So give us an example of one that you perform.
I didn't call for Harris to do anything, I said she covered up his senility.
Here's an example that applies from a guy famous for lying to Congress and then being a CNN hack.
Oh come on. At least man up to what you're saying. Exactly how would she uncover his senility without coming out and saying it? You're just trying to find a way out of a ridiculous argument.
Wow. That appears to be an article which describes exactly what you are hoping for; a public official with first hand knowledge that spoke out about Trump's mental instability, and did so through the proscribed channels. The fact that you are citing McCabe as someone who did the right thing in a major way is refreshing; kudos!
McCabe did not go public with his concerns; one guy doesn't get to try and convict a sitting President in the court of public opinion. However; McCabe and others went to their chain of command and expressed and examined the possibilty that Trump was so mentally deficient that he was incapable of fulfilling his Presidential duties. The only problem with it, I suppose, is that they were right; Trump was mentally deficient, yet the 25th Amendment was not put into action.
Then Trump should have been coached to call out the moderators and ask them why they aren't fact checking in drilling down on her answers. Instead, I think he got frustrated and went to people eating cats.
Just for you, Bob, I will 'man up' to exactly what I said above, which was:
"..It was obvious in the June debate Biden is bc senile and that Harris and others had covered that up. Do you now acknowledge that given how obvious it is - and what a true danger that is to the nation?"
Since you are confused and trying to extend my words beyond I said, I will say in response to your confusion that, for the good of the nation, what the Vice Puppet should have done, and still should do, is get some cabinet members together and move to enact the 25th amendment - just like katjm's hero McCabe (the guy who lied to Congress) was planning.
Don't you agree, having seen his bumbling, incoherent performance in the Trump debate?
Or did you jump up and cheer when he sputtered, "We finally beat Medicare!" ?
100%
And there are a few explanations for why he did not do that:
- His prep team did not coach him to do so.
- His prep team coached him to do so, but he ignored them or was so incensed about her bait that he completely lost focus.
- He decided to spend very little time on preparation, and was so incensed about her bait that he completely lost focus.
That proves that Vice Puppet Harris, who is far more trainable than Trump, would be a better president, right?
Is that what McCarthy was saying in that article you posted in violation of the copyright law?
Your name calling aside? "Trainable" is not the right word. But compared to Trooomp?
Damn near any major party candidate (and most toddlers) are better prepared, more focused, younger, and less prone to latching on to conspiracy theories and using them as a basis for speechifying and decision making. Put in the work it takes to be your best. Ol' Donnie J Trumpster is incapable of doing that.
Do you agree the Vice Puppet should bring the 25th against Biden for the good of the nation?
There is no one in the American government titled "Vice Puppet," so no, I do not.
Do you agree that: Damn near any major party candidate (and most toddlers) are better prepared, more focused, younger, and less prone to latching on to conspiracy theories and using them as a basis for speechifying and decision making than Donald J. Trump?
Do you agree the VP should bring the 25th against Biden for the good of the nation?
Or do your concerns about 'mental stability' only apply to Trump, but not to the senile guy he destroyed in the Sept debate?
btw, no, I don't agree with that.
Point to some decisions Trump made as president that back up with you are saying.
More crazy Trump conspiracy stuff:
www.foxnews.com
Time magazine issues correction for calling claim Harris supported funding migrant sex changes 'false'
Multiple outlets and media pundits mocked former President Trump bringing up Vice President Kamala Harris’ past support for free gender treatments for migrants.
You're just gonna keep covering the same ground with your condescending comments sprinkled in. What's the point other than you having to be right?
I've said Joe doesn't need to go. He's got a few more months. He's doing fine. According to your own words, you're basing this on his debate performance. Large sample size. Yet you think the bumbling idiot who got played like a cheap banjo in the last debate should be president.
No VP has EVER gotten together with cabinet members and tried to enact the 25th to remove their president. Do you have precedents I'm not aware of? Do you have a freaking clue of the ramifications to the VP, the cabinet members, and the party as a whole? They're trying to win an election. They would be committing political suicide and guaranteeing a loss. What you're demanding doesn't happen. Administration officials don't call for the 25th on their own guy.
I'm done. Feel free to spin this conversation in the future as me hating our country because I disagree with your position. It's what you do.
Appreciate the straightforward answer, but I think you're being inconsistent.
I think that (and with a basis for doing so) you are basing Biden's decline on his his appearance, presentation, and apparent lack of focus in the past year or so. That was not a criticism of him in 2020 when he ran. Other criticisms? Sure, but not that. It is visibly apparent now.
So apples to apples; if you think that Biden should step aside because of diminishing cognitive faculties, isn't that exactly the reason that that the 25th Amendment was considered by many inside the Executive branch when Trump was President? It wasn't because of policy. And it's only gotten worse. FAR worse.
That's what you say when you go into hiding. Say hello to kat if you see him there (let's hope the Haitians haven't gotten him).
